United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. HAMILTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on petitioner's application
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Having carefully reviewed the record, the Court will order
petitioner to show cause as to why the it should not dismiss
the instant petition as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. §
March 23, 2012, after a bench trial, petitioner was found
guilty of burglary in the first degree, unlawful use of a
weapon, endangering the welfare of a child and property
damage in the second degree. Petitioner was sentenced to
twenty-five (25) years' imprisonment. See State v. White,
No. 1122-CR00277-01 (22nd Judicial Circuit, City
of St. Louis). Petitioner's conviction and sentence were
affirmed on direct appeal on May 7, 2013. See White v.
State, No.ED98194 (Mo.Ct.App.).
filed a motion for post-conviction relief on July 22, 2013.
See Mullins v. State, No. 1322-CC08975
(22nd Judicial Circuit, City of St. Louis). The
trial court denied his motion on December 31, 2014.
Id. Petitioner filed a timely appeal of the denial,
and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court's decision on October 27, 2015. See Mullins v.
State, No. ED102604 (Mo.Ct.App.). The mandate was
entered on November 18, 2015.
of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts provides that a district court shall
summarily dismiss a § 2254 petition if it plainly
appears that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d):
(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an
application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The
limitation period shall run from the latest of--
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for
seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application
created by State action in violation of the Constitution or
laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was
prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was
initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has
been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or
claims presented could have been discovered through the
exercise of due diligence.
United States Supreme Court, in Gonzalez v. Thaler,
132 S.Ct. 641 (2012), held that a judgment becomes final
under § 2244)(d)(1)(A) when the time for seeking review
in the state's highest court expires. For Missouri
prisoners, like petitioner, who do not file a motion to
transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court, the limitations
period begins to run fifteen (15) days after the Missouri
Court of Appeals affirms a conviction on direct appeal.
See Mo.S.Ct.R. 83.02; see also, Payne v.
Kemna, 441 F.3d 570, 572 (8th Cir. 2006)
(post-conviction relief ...