United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CRITES-LEONI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on petitioner Shemira Hawkins'
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. (Docket No. 1). For the reasons discussed below,
the Court will order petitioner to show cause as to why her
petition should not be dismissed as time-barred under 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
November 25, 2008, petitioner was charged with second degree
murder and armed criminal action. State of Missouri v.
Hawkins, No. 0822-CR06480-01 (22nd Judicial
Cir., St. Louis City). She pled guilty to both counts on July
9, 2010. That same day, she was sentenced to twenty years
imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run
concurrently. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal.
filed a motion to vacate in the circuit court on January 13,
2011. State of Missouri v. Hawkins, No. 1122-CC00126
(22nd Judicial Cir., St. Louis City). The motion
was denied on May 4, 2011. Petitioner filed a notice of
appeal on June 13, 2011. The Missouri Court of Appeals
affirmed the circuit court on February 14, 2012. State of
Missouri v. Hawkins, 358 S.W.3d 588 (Mo. App. 2012). On
March 9, 2012, the Court of Appeals issued its mandate.
filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on
October 10, 2018, by placing it in the prison mailing
system. (Docket No. 1 at 13).
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. The
one-year statute of limitations found in the Anti-Terrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) begins to run
on the latest of four alternative dates. Jihad v.
Hvass, 267 F.3d 803, 804 (8th Cir. 2001).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1):
A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application
for 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 of conviction became final
by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of 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 has held that a judgment becomes
final under § 2244(d)(1)(A) when the time for seeking
review in the state's highest court expires. Gonzalez
v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 150 (2012). For Missouri
prisoners who do not file a direct appeal, judgment becomes
final ten days after sentencing. See Camacho v.
Hobbs, 774 F.3d 931, 935 (8thCir. 2015)
(stating that when a petitioner foregoes state appeals, the
court must look to state-court filing deadlines to determine
the expiration of the time for seeking direct review); and
Mo. S.Ct. R. 81.04(a) (“No such appeal shall be
effective unless the notice of appeal shall be filed not
later than ten days after the judgment, decree, or order
appealed from becomes ...