United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO SHOW
PATRICIA L. COHEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Petitioner did not seek direct review, judgment became final
for purposes of the federal habeas statute on October 21,
2013,  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.
“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 ...