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.

Eastman v. Smith

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

December 2, 2014

Justin Wayne Eastman, Petitioner,
v.
Michelle Smith, Warden, Respondent.

Justin Wayne Eastman, #203360, MCF-Stillwater, pro se.

Jean E. Burdorf, Hennepin County Attorney's Office, 300 S. 6th Street, Suite A-2000, Minneapolis, MN 55487; and Matthew Frank and James B. Early, Minnesota Attorney General's Office, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1800, St. Paul, MN 55101, for Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

HILDY BOWBEER, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Justin Wayne Eastman's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for a Person in State Custody [Doc. No. 1], which Petitioner brings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court has conducted a preliminary review of the Petition as required by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts ("Section 2254 Rules"). Based on that review, the Court concludes that Petitioner plainly is entitled to no relief because his claims are barred by the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Accordingly, the Court will recommend that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice.

I. Background

Petitioner pleaded guilty to a charge of second-degree intentional murder on July 6, 1999, and received a 480-month prison sentence from the Hennepin County District Court on July 27, 1999. [Pet. ¶¶ 1-3, 5-6.] Petitioner did not appeal the judgment of conviction. [Pet. ¶ 8.]

Ten years later, Petitioner filed a state-court petition for post-conviction relief. [Pet. ¶ 11.] Petitioner asserts that he raised the following arguments in that petition:

- The district court did not have sufficient reasons for departing upward from his presumptive sentence;
- His sentence unfairly exaggerated the criminality of his conduct;
- Petitioner did not enter his plea intelligently because the district court informed him of the incorrect presumptive sentence, did not advise him of his rights under Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.01, and did not consider the precise nature of Petitioner's mental health issues;
- Petitioner's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate Petitioner's past mental-health issues;
- Petitioner's appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to "federalize" and thereby preserve claims for future habeas proceedings; and
- Several issues with his physical and learning disabilities were not considered by the state courts or made part of the record by trial counsel.

[Pet. ¶ 11; Pet. 20-21, Addendum Attach. (1).] The Hennepin County District Court denied the state post-conviction petition on June 9, 2010. [Pet. ¶ 11(a)(7)-(8).] Petitioner appealed the denial of this post-conviction petition to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court's denial of the petition on April 26, 2011. [Pet. ¶ 9]; Eastman v. State (" Eastman I "), No. A10-1359, 2011 WL 1545488 (Minn.Ct.App. Apr. 26, 2011). The Supreme Court denied review of the court of appeals' decision on July ...


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.