United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
CHARLES E. FRANCIS, Petitioner,
JASON LEWIS, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on its own motion. On September
13, 2019, the Court ordered petitioner Charles E. Francis to
show cause why his petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 should not be summarily
denied and dismissed as time-barred. (Docket No. 13).
Petitioner was given thirty days in which to file a response.
He has not submitted anything to the Court. Thus, for the
reasons discussed below, the Court will deny and dismiss the
petition as untimely.
April 17, 2014, petitioner was charged by amended information
with one count of manufacturing methamphetamine at a
residence where a minor child resided. State of Missouri
v. Francis, No. 12IR-CR00288-01 (42nd Cir.,
Iron County). Following a jury trial on April 24, 2014,
petitioner was found guilty. He was sentenced on August 8,
2018 to life in prison. He filed a notice of appeal on August
Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner's judgment
and sentence on September 17, 2015. State of Missouri v.
Francis, No. SD33491 (Mo. App. S.D. 2015). Petitioner
did not file a motion to transfer to the Missouri Supreme
did not file a motion to set aside until December 28, 2015.
Francis v. State of Missouri, No. 16IR-CC00001
(42nd Cir., Iron County). The motion was denied on
March 23, 2017. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on March
29, 2017. Francis v. State of Missouri, No. SD34926
(Mo. App. S.D. 2018). The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed
the circuit court's decision on August 31, 2018. The
mandate was issued on September 18, 2018.
filed the instant petition on July 24, 2019, by placing it
into the prison mailing system. (Docket No. 1 at 13).
September 13, 2019, petitioner was ordered to show cause in
writing as to why the Court should not dismiss his petition
as time-barred. The Court noted that petitioner appeared to
have filed his petition thirty days after the expiration of
the one-year statute of limitations. The Court gave
petitioner thirty days in which to submit his response. More
than thirty days have elapsed, and petitioner has not filed a
response with the Court.
is a pro se litigant currently incarcerated in the Southeast
Correctional Center in Charleston, Missouri. He has filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. Having reviewed the petition and the underlying
state-court actions, the Court has determined that the
petition is untimely. The Court provided petitioner with an
opportunity to show cause why his petition should not be
denied and dismissed. However, petitioner has not submitted a
response. Therefore, for the reasons discussed below, the
Court must deny and dismiss petitioner's § 2254
petition as time-barred.
the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(AEDPA), Congress established a one-year statute of
limitations period for petitioners seeking federal habeas
relief from state court judgments. Finch v. Miller,
491 F.3d 424, 426 (8th Cir. 2007). This one-year
statute of limitations begins to run on the latest of four
alternative dates. Jihad v. Hvass, 267 F.3d 803, 804
(8th Cir. 2001). Relevant here is the provision
stating that a habeas petitioner has one year from the date
his judgment becomes final to file his federal petition for
writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).
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, such as petitioner, who do not file a motion to
transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court, the limitations
period begins to run fifteen days after the Missouri Court of
Appeals affirms a conviction on direct appeal. See
Camacho v. Hobbs, 774 F.3d 931, 935 (8th Cir.
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. 83.02 (stating that a party seeking
transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court must file an
application for such transfer "within fifteen days of
the date on which the opinion, memorandum decision, written
order, or order of dismissal is filed").
Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner's
conviction and sentence on direct appeal on September 17,
2015. Petitioner did not file a motion to transfer to the
Missouri Supreme Court. Thus, his judgment became final on
October 2, 2015, the date that the fifteen-day period for
filing an application to ...