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.

Thomas v. Commonwealth

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

April 2, 2019

ROBERT THOMAS, Petitioner,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent.

          Brann, Judge.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Martin C. Carlson, United States Magistrate Judge.

         I. Statement of Facts and of the Case

         The factual background of this case can be simply stated: The petitioner, Robert Thomas, comes before this court having been convicted at trial on August 31, 2010, of burglary, false imprisonment and terroristic threats. (Docs. 1 and 14.) Following post-conviction litigation in state court, Thomas secured a re-sentencing from the state court on February 29, 2012. (Id.) Thomas then pursued a number of direct appeals from this conviction and sentence, appeals which culminated on March II, 2014, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review of Thomas' case. (Id.) Consequently, Thomas' conviction became final on June 9, 2014, after the 90-day deadline for petitioning the United States Supreme Court for writ of certiorari lapsed. (Id.)

         Six months then passed before Thomas filed a state Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition challenging his conviction and sentence in state court on December 10, 2014. (Id.) This state PCRA litigation drew to a close on November 22, 2016, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to review Thomas' unsuccessful post-conviction petition. (Id.)

         One year later, on November 27, 2017, Thomas filed the instant federal habeas corpus petition. (Doc. 1.) Given the delay in this litigation which has spanned the past nine years, the Respondents asserted the bar of the statute of limitations as a defense to this habeas corpus petition. (Doc. 14.) For his part, Thomas never filed a traverse challenging this argument that his petition is untimely and barred by the statute of limitations. This case was referred to the undersigned on January 9, and March 8, 2019. (Doc. 14.) Upon assuming responsibility for this case, and examining the record of these state proceedings, for the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that this petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied as untimely.

         11. Discussion

         A. State Prisoner Habeas Relief-The Legal Standard.

         A state prisoner seeking to invoke the power of this Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus must satisfy the standards prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which provides in part as follows:

(a) The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.
(b)(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that-
(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State;
(2) An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in ...

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.