Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sanchez v. Lawson

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

September 12, 2019

EMMANUEL SANCHEZ, Petitioner,
v.
TERI LAWSON, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE

          PATRICIA L. COHEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court upon Petitioner Emmanuel Sanchez's petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because the petition appears to be time-barred, the Court will order Petitioner to show cause why it should not be dismissed.

         Petitioner is presently incarcerated at the Farmington Correctional Center. On October 10, 2013, he pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter, two counts of armed criminal action, second-degree assault, and marijuana possession. State v. Emmanuel Sanchez, No. 1122-CR05672-01 (22nd Jud. Cir. 2013). On that same date, he was sentenced to serve a total of 15 years in prison. He did not seek direct review.

         On November 8, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion for post-conviction relief in state court. The docket sheet for that proceeding reports that on November 22, 2013, Petitioner's post-conviction motion was dismissed “by the parties.” See Emmanuel Sanchez v. State, No. 1322-CC09896 (22nd Jud. Cir. 2013). Petitioner does not aver, nor does independent inquiry reveal, that he sought in state court any further relief from the judgment in his criminal case.

         Petitioner signed his petition on August 26, 2019 and it was docketed in this Court on September 5, 2019, the date the Court received it. Applying the prison mailbox rule, Nichols v. Bowersox, 172 F.3d 1068, 1077 (8th Cir. 1999) (en banc), and giving Petitioner the benefit of the signature date, see Beery v. Ault, 312 F.3d 948, 950 (8th Cir. 2002), the Court determines the instant petition was filed on August 26, 2019, the date Petitioner signed it.[1]

         Under 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.

         In Missouri criminal cases, a judgment becomes final when sentence is imposed, State v. Larson, 79 S.W.3d 891, 893 (Mo. 2002) (en banc), and a notice of appeal must be filed not later than ten days thereafter, Missouri Supreme Court Rule 81.04. Therefore, Petitioner had ten days from October 10, 2013, the date sentence was imposed, to seek direct review of his sentence.

         Because Petitioner did not seek direct review, judgment became final for purposes of the federal habeas statute on October 21, 2013, [2] the date upon which the time for seeking such review expired. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Accordingly, the one-year limitation period began to run on that date. However, Petitioner did not file this petition until more than five years after October 21, 2013.

         The “time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Therefore, the one-year limitation period for filing a federal habeas petition is tolled while “a properly filed application for State ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.