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.

Blanks v. 20th Judicial Circuit Court

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division

June 6, 2017

MITCHELL M. BLANKS, Petitioner,
v.
20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, LEE COUNTY, FL and D.O.C., Respondents.

          ORDER OF DISMISSAL

          JOHN E. STEEL, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Petitioner initiated this case on May 8, 2017 by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). Petitioner filed an amended petition on May 19, 2017 (Doc. 5). Petitioner challenges his convictions and sentences entered by the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court in Lee County, Florida for burglary of an occupied dwelling; petit theft; burglary with an assault of battery; robbery; grand theft; burglary with a battery; robbery with a weapon and aggravated battery. Id. at 1.

         After conducting a preliminary review of the amended petition[1], the Court concluded that the petition was untimely on its face. Accordingly, pursuant to Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 209 (2006), Petitioner was directed to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed (Doc. 7). Petitioner filed a response asserting that each of his claims is exhausted, but offers no argument regarding the petition's timelines (Doc. 8).

         Because a review of the pleadings show that Petitioner's habeas petition was untimely filed, the petition will be dismissed with prejudice.

         I. Background

         Petitioner was convicted of several burglary-related counts in 1992 (Doc. 5 at 1; Doc. 1-1 at 13, 22). He was sentenced to life in prison (Doc. 1-1 at 13). It is unclear from the pleadings before this Court whether Petitioner filed a direct appeal of his convictions and sentences. However, on March 14, 1995, he filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Rule 3.850 motion”) (Doc. 5 at 7). In that motion, Petitioner asserted that “the departure sentences are invalid which resulted in defendant's sentences being illegal.” Id. On June 7, 1995, the post-conviction court denied the Rule 3.850 motion. Id. Petitioner filed an appeal, and Florida's Second District Court of Appeal reversed the order and remanded the case back to the post-conviction court to attach relevant portions of the record demonstrating that Petitioner was not entitled to any relief or to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the merits of his claims. Blanks v. State, 662 So.2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). On January 9, 1996, the post-conviction court again denied Petitioner's Rule 3.850 motion (Doc. 5 at 7). Petitioner did not appeal.

         On August 1, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Rule 3.800(a) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (Doc. 5 at 7). On October 10, 2007, the motion was denied. Id. Petitioner filed an appeal, and Florida's Second District Court of Appeal affirmed. Blanks v. State, 988 So.2d 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (table). Petitioner filed a second Rule 3.800(a) motion on January 9, 2009 (Doc. 5 at 8). The motion was denied, and Florida's Second District Court of Appeal affirmed. Blanks v. State, 19 So.3d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (table).

         On February 20, 2012, Petitioner filed a second Rule 3.850 motion which was denied by the post-conviction court as successive (Doc. 5 at 8-9). Petitioner filed another Rule 3.850 motion on March 12, 2012, which was again denied as successive. Id.

         Petitioner signed his original 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition on May 3, 2017 (Doc. 1 at 5).

         II. Analysis

         Pursuant to the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), a one-year period of limitation applies to the filing of a habeas petition by a person in custody pursuant to a state court judgment. This limitation period runs 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 that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made ...

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.