United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
A. RICHARD CAPUTO, District Judge.
On April 10, 2013, Stephen R. Lang filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2010 guilty plea convictions in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, for various sex offenses against minors. (Doc. 1, Pet.) Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or a Partial Answer to the Petition claiming that it is time barred. (Doc. 8, Mot. to Dismiss). Although given the opportunity to reply to the Respondents' charge that his Petition is untimely, Mr. Lang failed to oppose the motion.
For the reasons that follow, the Petition will be dismissed as untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
The following background has been extracted from the Pennsylvania Superior Court's November 8, 2012 Opinion affirming the trial court's denial of Mr. Lang's petition for collateral review filed pursuant to Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 PA. CON. STAT. ANN. §§ 9541, et seq.
On March 16, 2010, Lang was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 5 to 10 years following a guilty plea to charges that he provided alcohol to, and had intercourse with, his 18 year old daughter, combined with a plea of nolo contendere to charges arising from allegations that he had supplied marijuana and alcohol to, and digitally penetrated, his daughter's 17 year old friend. Lang did not file an appeal for his judgment of sentence; rather, he filed a pro se motion to withdraw [his] guilty plea based upon allegations of ineffectiveness of plea counsel. Lang's appointed counsel was permitted to withdraw, and Lang's motion to withdraw his guilty plea was denied on November 18, 2010.
Lang filed the instant, pro se, petition on June 20, 2011. On November 2, 2011, the PCRA court dismissed Lang's petition and granted Lang's counsel's petition to withdraw. This timely pro se appeal followed.
Here, as noted above, Lang's petition was filed on June 20, 2011, more than one year after April 15, 2010, when Lang's right to a direct appeal from his sentence expired, As such, it is patently untimely. Furthermore, Land does not argue in his appellate brief in favor of the application of any of the timeliness exceptions. As such, we conclude that Lang's petition was untimely and affirm the PCRA court's decision on that basis.
See Doc. 8-4, ECF pp. 47-49, Commonwealth v. Lang, No. 2058 MDA 2011 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 8, 2012). Mr. Lang did not file a petition for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court challenging the Superior Court of Pennsylvania's November 8, 2012 decision.
Mr. Lang filed his federal habeas corpus petition on April 10, 2013. (Doc. 1, Pet.)
A. AEDPA's Statute of ...