United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on petitioner's motion for
writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254. The motion is barred by the statute of limitations, and
petitioner will be required to show cause why his application
for relief should not be summarily dismissed.
February of 1995, petitioner plead guilty to possession of
cocaine. See State v. Huggans, No. 22931-03470-01
(St. Louis City Court, 22nd Judicial Circuit). He
was sentenced to five (5) years' imprisonment in the
Missouri Department of Corrections, concurrent with a prior
ten (10) year sentence he received on August 3, 1990, for
second degree drug trafficking in State v. Huggans,
No. 891-03557 (St. Louis City Court, 22nd Judicial
failed to appeal his five-year sentence at the time he
received his conviction in 1995. Rather, on September 29,
2009, petitioner filed a motion to vacate his sentence,
pursuant to Mo.Sup.Ct.Rule 24.035. Huggans v. State,
No. 1022-CC01896 (St. Louis City Court, 22nd
Judicial Circuit). In his motion, filed fourteen years after
his conviction, petitioner argued that newly-discovered
evidence of police misconduct showed that he was innocent of
the crime for which he had been convicted. Petitioner also
asserted that his counsel had been ineffective because he
relied on allegedly false evidence and reports provided by
police officers involved in the investigation when coercing
him into pleading guilty. The court denied his motion to
vacate on July 27, 2016. Id.
September 9, 2016, petitioner appealed the denial of his
motion to vacate in the Court of Appeals. Huggans v.
State, No. ED 105524 (Mo.Ct.App.2017). The Court of
Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the appeal as untimely on
June 21, 2017. Id.
September 14, 2017, petitioner filed a Missouri Rule 91
application for writ of habeas corpus in the Missouri Court
of Appeals. Huggans v. State, No. ED105914
(Mo.Ct.App.2017). The Court denied petitioner's writ
because he was not in state custody at the time of
October 13, 2017, petitioner filed a second Rule 91
application for writ of habeas corpus. However, this time he
filed it in the Missouri Supreme Court. Huggans v.
State, No. SC96734 (2017). Petitioner's request was
denied on November 21, 2017. Id.
placed the instant application for habeas corpus brought
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the prison mailing
system on November 13, 2018.
claims in his motions were all based on his allegations that
former St. Louis City Police Officer Bobby Lee Garrett
provided false and misleading information to the Circuit
Court in order to obtain a search warrant, and that Garrett
planted evidence at the scene in order to obtain
petitioner's conviction. In his motions, petitioner
identified Garrett as the arresting officer in his case.
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 ...