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.

Preston v. Sec'y

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Gainesville Division

September 24, 2019

COURTNEY J. PRESTON, Petitioner,
v.
Sec'y, FLA. Dep't. OF CORR., Respondent.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          GARY R. JONES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Petitioner initiated this case by filing a Petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2012 conviction in Alachua County for first-degree murder and armed home-invasion robbery, which he later amended. ECF Nos. 1, 7. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss and Incorporated Memorandum of Law along with relevant portions of the state-court record, seeking to dismiss the Petition as untimely. ECF No. 21. Petitioner filed a Response. ECF No. 23. The Motion is therefore ripe for review.

         I. Background

         On February 24, 2012, Petitioner was convicted in Alachua County, Florida, of first-degree murder and armed home invasion robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. ECF No. 21-1. Petitioner appealed, and the Florida First District Court of Appeal (DCA) affirmed his judgment and sentence in a per curiam decision entered on August 30, 2013. Preston v. State, 119 So.3d 1252 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 30, 2013).[1]

         On September 6, 2014, Petitioner submitted a petition for writ of habeas corpus to prison officials at Hamilton CI for mailing alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(d). ECF No. 21-2 at 1. The Florida First DCA denied the petition on the merits in a per curiam decision entered on April 8, 2015. ECF No. 21-2 at 16. Petitioner then filed a “Motion for Rehearing/Written Opinion/Clarification, ” which the First DCA denied on May 15, 2015. Id. at 21; Preston v. State, 163 So.3d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA May 15, 2015).

         On June 12, 2015, Petitioner submitted a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 to prison officials at Century CI for mailing. ECF No. 21-3 at 10. The Florida First DCA affirmed the denial of the Motion in a per curiam decision entered on January 31, 2018 and issued its mandate on February 28, 2018. ECF No. 21-4 at 2; Preston v. State, 241 So.3d 84 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan. 31, 2018).

         On April 12, 2018, Petitioner submitted his federal Petition for writ of habeas corpus to prison officials at Hardee CI for mailing. ECF No. 1 at 1. The Petition was deficient, however, because Petitioner did not file the petition on the form utilized by this Court. Accordingly, the Court ordered Petitioner to file an amended petition on the appropriate form. ECF No. 4. Petitioner submitted his Amended Petition to prison officials at DeSoto CI for mailing on May 17, 2018. ECF No. 7 at 21.

         II. One-Year Limitation Period

         Petitions filed after April 24, 1996, are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 792 (2001). The AEDPA created a limitations period for petitions for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to § 2254:

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 ...

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.