United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
KENNETH D. PARKER, Petitioner,
J.T. SHARTLE, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG 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. §
August 12, 2013, petitioner pled guilty to robbery in the
first degree and robbery in the second degree. On August 22,
2013, petitioner was sentenced to ten years imprisonment on
both counts, concurrent to one another and concurrent to
three federal sentences in United States v. Parker,
Nos. 2:12CR4005 FJG, 2:12CR4029 FJG and 2:10CR4055 FJG
(W.D.Mo.). See State v. Parker, No.
10SL-CR08721-01 (21st Judicial Circuit, St. Louis
County). Petitioner's conviction and sentence were
affirmed on direct appeal on May 7, 2013. See Parker v.
State, No.ED101566 (Mo. Ct.App.).
failed to file any motions for post-conviction relief,
although he did file a state habeas corpus motion, pursuant
to Mo.Sup.Ct.R.91 on June 27, 2016, seeking to have his
conviction and sentence overturned. See Parker v.
State, No. 16SL-CC02838 (21st Judicial
Circuit, St. Louis County). The motion was denied without a
hearing on August 4, 2016. Id.
filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by placing his application for writ
in the prison mailing system on March 27, 2017.
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