The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert C. Mitchell United States Magistrate Judge
REPORT and RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the petition of Maurice R. Goins for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed and because reasonable jurists could not conclude that a basis for appeal exists, that a certificate of appealability be denied.
Maurice R. Goins, an inmate that the State Correctional Institution -- Albion has presented a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which he has been granted leave to prosecute in forma pauperis.
Goins is presently serving a twenty to forty year sentence imposed following his conviction by a jury of third degree murder at CP-02-8059-1998 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. This sentence was imposed on September 15, 1999.*fn1 Although not clearly specified in the petition, the docket sheet of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County reveals that the petitioner was sentenced on November 9, 1999 (Docket p.5) and his conviction was affirmed by the Superior Court on February 21, 2001 (Docket p.8).*fn2
Goins first post-conviction petition was filed on August 20, 2001 (Docket p.9) and denied on January 23, 2001 (Docket p.12). A second post-conviction petition was filed on August 10, 2004 (Docket p.13) and was dismissed on August 16, 2004 (Docket p.13). Denial of relief was affirmed by the Superior Court on December 19, 2005 (Docket p.15) and leave to appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was denied on August 7, 2006 (Docket p.15). Goins' third post-conviction petition was filed on December 31, 2008 (Docket p.17) and denied on February 12 2009 (Docket p.17).
It is provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and (d)(2) that:
(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to the 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 ...