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.

Northrup v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division

April 3, 2017

DAVID J. NORTHRUP, Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents.

          ORDER

          TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN United States District Judge

         I. Status

         Petitioner initiated this action by filing a pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) (Petition). He challenges a 2002 state court (St. Johns County, Florida) judgment of conviction for sexual battery, a capital felony, for which he is serving life imprisonment. Respondents contend that the Petition was untimely filed, and therefore, this case must be dismissed. See Response to Petition (Doc. 5) (Response).[1]Petitioner notified the Court that he would rely on his Petition and cited Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012). See “Traverse/Reply” (Doc. 6) (Reply). The case is ripe for review.[2]

         II. One-Year Limitations Period

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) amended 28 U.S.C. § 2244 by adding the following subsection:

(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.
(2) 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 under this subsection.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

         III. Procedural History[3] / Analysis

         On September 9, 2002, Petitioner entered a nolo contendere plea to one count of sexual battery, a capital felony. Ex. A at 32-43, 70-80. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment that same day. See id. On May 27, 2003, the Fifth District Court of Appeal per curiam affirmed the judgment without the entry of a written opinion. Ex. D. Petitioner's judgment became final ninety days later on August 25, 2003. See Supreme Court Rule 13.3;[4]Clay ...


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.