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.

Donte Parrish v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

October 19, 2011

DONTE PARRISH, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : RESPONDENT



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. John E. Jones III

MEMORANDUM

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Petitioner Donte Parrish ("Petitioner" or "Parrish"), an inmate presently confined at the United States Penitentiary- Lewisburg ("USP Lewisburg") in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, commenced this pro se action by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Parrish challenges his convictions in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Pennsylvania, for which he was sentenced on March 6, 2002 and June 19, 2002.

Presently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss the Petition as Untimely, which was filed by the Office of the District Attorney of York County on behalf of Respondent. (Doc. 8.) Also pending is Parrish's Motion to Accept the Petition as Timely (Doc. 9), which we construe as his reply to Respondent's Motion.For the reasons set forth herein, Parrish's Motion will be denied, Respondent's Motion will be granted, and the Petition will be dismissed.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In its Motion to Dismiss, Respondent provides the following factual background concerning the 2002 York County convictions that Parrish is challenging in the instant Petition:

On March 6, 2002, Parrish pled guilty and was sentenced by the York County Court of Common Pleas to six (6) to twenty-three (23) months and ordered to pay restitution for the crimes of reckless endangerment, possession of a firearm without a license, and criminal mischief. (Doc. 8, Mot. to Dismiss, ¶ 3; Doc. 8-1, Copy of Criminal Docket in Commonwealth v. Parrish, Docket No. CP-67-CR-0005848-2001, at 3.*fn1 ) Parrish did not file a direct appeal from his judgment of sentence. (Doc. 1, Pet., at 2 ¶ 8; Doc. 8 ¶ 4; Doc. 8-1.) He also has not filed any other petitions, applications, or motions concerning this conviction in any state court. (Doc. 1 at 3 ¶ 10.)

On June 19, 2002, Parrish pled guilty and was sentenced by the York County Court of Common Pleas to time served to twenty-three (23) months for the crime of terroristic threats, with time served to be concurrent with his sentence in his case at 5848-2001. (Doc. 8 ¶ 5; Doc. 8-2, Copy of Criminal Docket in Commonwealth v. Parrish, Docket No. CP-67-CR-0001110-2002, at 4.) Parrish did not file a direct appeal from his judgment of sentence. (Doc. 1 at 2 ¶ 8; Doc. 8 ¶ 6; Doc. 8-2.) He also has not filed any other petitions, applications, or motions concerning this conviction in any state court. (Doc. 1 at 3 ¶ 10.)

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Parrish filed the instant Petition on March 29, 2011. (Doc. 1.) Because it appeared that the Petition may be barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), by Order dated April 11, 2011, the Court directed service of the Petition on the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the District Attorney of York County and further directed the filing of a response within twenty-one (21) days addressing whether the Petition was timely filed. (Doc. 4.) The Order also provided that, in accordance with United States v. Bendolph, 409 F.3d 155, 169 (3d Cir. 2005), Parrish could file a reply to Respondent's submission within fourteen (14) days of its filing. (Id.)

In response to our Order, on May 20, 2011, the Office of the District Attorney of York County filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition as Untimely on behalf of Respondent. (Doc. 8.) Parrish did not file a reply. However, within the time period designated for Parrish to file a reply, on June 2, 2011, he filed a Motion in which he requests that this Court accept the Petition as timely filed based upon the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. - - - -, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010). (Doc. 9.) We therefore construe Parrish's Motion as his reply to Respondent's Motion. The issue of the timeliness of the instant Petition thus is ripe for disposition.

III. DISCUSSION

The Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), amended the federal habeas statute by imposing a statute of limitations on prisoners requesting habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Specifically, Section 2244(d)(1) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides as follows:

(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 ...


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.