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.

Robinson v. Harry

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

December 17, 2019

DONTAE EUGENE ROBINSON, Petitioner
v.
SUPERINTENDENT LAUREL HARRY, et al, Respondents

          MEMORANDUM

          A. RICHARD CAPUTO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Petitioner Dontae Robinson filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2012 conviction from the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.[1] (ECF No. 1.) Respondent seeks the dismissal of the petition as untimely. (ECF No. 6.) Mr. Robinson filed a traverse arguing his "sentence only became final on September 14, 2016" when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his Petition for Allowance of Appeal. (ECF No. 7.) For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss the petition as untimely. A certificate of appealability will not be issued.

         I. Background

         On December 5, 2012, Mr. Robinson plead guilty to four counts of robbery, one count of conspiracy, four counts of unlawful restraint, and one court each of persons not to possess firearms and carrying a firearm without a license. The trial court sentenced him to 10 to 20 years' imprisonment. Commonwealth v. Robinson, No. 1564 MDA 2014, 2015 WL 5971073, at *1 (Pa. Super. Aug. 26, 2015) (non-precedential). Mr. Robinson did not file a direct appeal.

         On November 29, 2013, Mr. Robinson filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9545, et seq. On July 29, 2014, following a hearing, the PCRA court denied the petition. (Id.) Mr. Robinson filed a timely notice of appeal on August 15, 2014. See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 1564 MDA 2014, 2015 WL 5971073 (Pa. Super. Aug. 26, 2015).[2] On August 26, 2015, noting that Mr. Robinson's "judgment of sentence became final on Friday, January 4, 2013, or thirty days after the trial court imposed sentence. Pa. R.A.P. 903(a)", the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the denial of Mr. Robinson's PCRA petition. (Id. at *3.) On September 14, 2016, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied the petition for allowance of appeal. See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 717 MAL 2015 (Pa. Sept. 21.2015).[3] (Id.)

         Mr. Robinson commenced this action on September 9, 2017, pursuant to the mailbox rule, [4] Mr. Robinson filed the instant petition. (ECF No. 1.)

         II. Discussion

         A. Timeliness

         The 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." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) provides a one-year statute of limitations for § 2254 petitions filed by a person in state custody. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Specifically, 28 U.S.C. 2244(d) provides in relevant part:

(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitations shall apply to an application for writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitations 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 prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State postconviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward ...

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.