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.

Grimes v. Link

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

December 18, 2017

TYLER P. GRIMES, Petitioner
v.
CYNTHIA LINK, Respondent

          MEMORANDUM

          RICHARD P. CONABOY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Background

         Tyler P. Grimes (Petitioner), an inmate presently confined at the State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania (SCI- Graterford), filed the above captioned habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Named as Respondent is SCI- Graterford Superintendent Cynthia Link. Service of the petition was previously ordered.

         Petitioner states that he entered a guilty plea on November 21, 2013 to charges of robbery, theft, burglary, receiving stolen property, and conspiracy in the York County, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. According to the petition, Grimes was sentenced that same day to an aggregate ten (10) year, three (3) month to twenty (20) year, six (6) month term of imprisonment.

         Petitioner states that he did not pursue a direct appeal. See Doc. 1, ¶ 8. On April 23, 2014, Grimes filed an action pursuant to Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).[1] On March 25, 2015, Petitioner indicates that the PCRA petition was withdrawn.

         In his pending action, Petitioner claims entitlement to federal habeas corpus relief on the grounds that trial counsel was ineffective for advising him to reject an negotiated plea agreement and to enter an open guilty plea and denial of his right to appeal. See id. at ¶ 12.

         Discussion

         Respondent has filed a motion seeking dismissal of this matter on the basis that has not filed a timely habeas corpus action. See Doc. 9. Grimes' pending § 2254 petition is dated June 7, 2017, [2] and will be deemed filed as of that date. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (a prisoner's action is deemed filed at the time it is given to prison officials for mailing to the Court).

         Section 2244(d) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides, in relevant part, 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 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 for seeking such review . . .
(d)(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 toward any period of limitation under this subsection.

See generally, Jones v. Morton, 195 F.3d. 153, 157 (3d Cir. 1999).

         Under the plain terms of § 2244(d)(1)(A), the period of time for filing a habeas corpus petition begins to run when the period for direct review expired. See Harris v. Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325, 327 (4th Cir. 2000)("upon conclusion of direct review of a judgment of conviction, the one year period within which to file a federal habeas corpus petition commences, but the running of the period is suspended for ...


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.