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.

Troutman v. Commonwealth

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

May 26, 2017

DONALD TROUTMAN, Petitioner,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY; MICHAEL CLARK, Superintendent of SCI-Albion, Respondents.

          OPINION

          MAUREEN P. KELLY CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Donald Troutman (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, has filed a “Petition for Federal Habeas Corpus” (the “Petition”), challenging his convictions for raping his minor daughter. Because the Petition was not filed within one year of his conviction becoming final, the Petition will be dismissed as time-barred.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On November 8, 2016, Petitioner submitted the Petition to the Clerk's Office. ECF No.

         1. The Court entered a Deficiency Order, directing Petitioner to utilize the form Section 2254 Petition which is provided by the Clerk's Office. ECF No. 2. Petitioner complied and filed a corrected Petition (the “Corrected Petition”). ECF No. 5. The Corrected Petition raised the following multiple claims under Ground One:

GROUND ONE: MY RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL (RULE 600) MY RIGHT TO A FAIR, UNPREJUDICE [sic] AND BIAS TRIAL MY COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVELY SUGGESTING BENCH TRIAL VS. JURY TRIAL MEDICAL REPORTS AND/OR MEDICAL EXPERT EXAMINER NOT SUPOENA [sic] TO TRIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE VERDICT THE VICTIM'S STATEMENT WAS INCONSISTENT OR INADEQUATE CONCERNING SAID CRIME. MY JUDGE RULING ON ADMENDING [sic] DATE/YEAR OF CRIME, DISMISSING/DROPPING AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL HAD VS MY ORIGINAL COUNSEL HAD TO WITHDRAW FROM CASE.

ECF No. 5 at 6.

         After requesting two extensions of time, ECF Nos. 13 and 15, which were granted, ECF Nos. 14 and 16, Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss, based upon the Petition being time-barred. ECF No. 17. The Court ordered Petitioner to file a Response to the Motion to Dismiss no later than May 15, 2017. ECF No. 18. To date, Petitioner has not filed a response as ordered despite the deadline for the response having passed.

         All parties have consented to the plenary exercise of jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge. ECF Nos. 10, 12.

         II. THE PETITION IS TIME-BARRED.

         A. The AEDPA Statute of Limitations

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, tit. I, §101 (1996) which amended the standards for reviewing state court judgments in federal habeas petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was enacted on April 24, 1996. Because the Petition in this case was filed after its effective date, the AEDPA is applicable to this case. Werts v. Vaughn, 228 F.3d 178, 195 (3d Cir. 2000).

         Respondents correctly pointed out that this Petition is untimely under the AEDPA. The AEDPA requires that state prisoners file their federal habeas petition within one year after their conviction became final. Specifically, the AEDPA provides that:

(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 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 ...

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.