United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
REPORT and RECOMMENDATION
ROBERT C. MITCHELL, Magistrate Judge.
It is respectfully recommended that the petition of Mozelle Goudy 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.
II. Report: Mozelle Goudy, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution Benner has presented a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Petitioner is presently serving a twelve to twenty-four year sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to a charge of third degree murder at No. 73 Criminal 2008, in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County, Pennsylvania. This sentence was imposed on June 5, 2009. No appeal was pursued.
On June 3, 2010, Goudy filed a post-conviction petition. On December 9, 2010 post-conviction relief was denied. A notice of appeal was filed and upon petitioner's request, that appeal was discontinued on May 5, 2011. An amended post-conviction petition was then filed and it was dismissed on August 3, 2011. An appeal was taken to the Superior Court in which the issue presented was:
Whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's Post Conviction Relief Petition alleging that at the time of the Appellant's guilty plea, he did not provide a guilty plea colloquy providing a factual basis for the plea of guilty to murder in the third degree?
On March 1, 2012 the denial of post-conviction relief was affirmed on the grounds that it was untimely filed.
A third post-conviction petition was filed in September 24, 2012 raising the issue of petitioner's competency. It was dismissed on January 9, 2013 on the grounds that even if the petition had been timely filed the issue was meritless.
A fourth post-conviction petition was filed on July 31, 2013 and dismissed on September 16, 2013 on the grounds that even if it was assumed that the petition was timely, it was meritless.
In the instant petition, received on February 4, 2014, Goudy alleges he is entitled to relief on the grounds that trial counsel was ineffective in not filing a direct appeal and that as a result he has been foreclosed from seeking relief.
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 ...