United States District Court, D. Minnesota
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JANIE S. MAYERON, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge on Petitioner's self-styled application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Docket No. 1]. The case has been referred to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.1.
For the reasons discussed below, it is recommended that this action be summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases In The United States District Courts.
Petitioner is an inmate at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. Petition, p. 1. Petitioner is serving a 423-month prison sentence for second-degree murder, to which he pled guilty. Id . Petition, p. 6. A Criminal Judgment and Warrant of Commitment was entered in Petitioner's state court criminal case on May 21, 2008. State Court Register of Actions.
Petitioner contended that when he pled guilty to second-degree murder, he agreed to a departure within the 306-month presumptive sentencing guidelines grid based on his criminal history score of zero, but "unknowingly" accepted a plea agreement that provided that his sentence would be based on a criminal history score of 5, which opened the door to a longer sentence than he anticipated. Id., p. 6. Petitioner alleged that this upward departure violated his federal constitutional rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to have a jury determine the facts related to any upward departure as required by Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Petition, pp. 7-9. Petitioner also alleged that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel relating to his plea agreement. Id., p. 7 (citing Hill v. Lockhart , 474 U.S. 52 (1985), Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984)).
As relief, Petitioner sought "appellate court review" of "all aspects of the criminalhistory score, " the "excessive sentencing scheme, " the "Blakely issue to have a jury decide the aggravating-factor for an upward departure beyond the maximum sentence allowed by the guidelines" and "ineffectiveness of counsel" and sought a correction or reduction of his sentence. Id., p. 9.
For the reasons set forth below, this Court is recommending that the Petition be summarily dismissed with prejudice because it is time-barred.
The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") established a one-year statute of limitations for habeas corpus petitions filed by state prisoners seeking federal court review of a conviction or sentence. This statute 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 B
(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 ...