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.

Mosley v. State

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

December 4, 2018

EDDIE MATTHEW MOSLEY, Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF MINNESOTA, Respondent.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          STEVEN E. RAU U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Petitioner Eddie Matthew Mosley filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging multiple convictions for first-degree murder incurred in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition is now before the Court pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Based on that review, this Court now recommends that the petition be denied as untimely.

Mosley was indicted by a Hennepin County grand jury on three counts of first-degree premeditated murder, three counts of first-degree felony murder (burglary of an occupied dwelling), and three counts of first-degree felony murder (burglary while possessing a firearm), arising out of the shooting deaths of DeLois Brown, James Bolden, and Clover Bolden. Following a bench trial, Mosley was convicted of three counts of first-degree premeditated murder, and the district court imposed three consecutive life sentences without the possibility of release.

State v. Mosley, 853 N.W.2d 789, 793 (Minn. 2014).

         Mosley raised three claims on direct appeal before the Minnesota Supreme Court: (1) that the trial court abused its discretion and violated his constitutional rights in admitting an in-court eyewitness identification; (2) that the trial court abused its discretion and violated his constitutional rights by excluding proposed expert testimony regarding the problems with eyewitness identification generally; and (3) that the prosecutor committed misconduct by eliciting testimony about Mosley's sexual history and possible activity relating to illegal drug distribution, and also by introducing into evidence text messages from Mosley to his half-sister. See generally id. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions on September 24, 2014. Id. On January 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied Mosley's petition for a writ of certiorari on direct appeal. See Mosley v. Minnesota, No. 14-7467, 135 S.Ct. 1185 (Jan. 26, 2015).

         On December 21, 2015, Mosley filed a petition for postconviction relief in state court. See State v. Mosley, 895 N.W.2d 585, 589 (Minn. 2017). Mosley raised three claims in his postconviction petition: (1) a claim based on the allegedly newly discovered evidence of five witness attesting by affidavit that Mosley had been in another city at the time of the murders; (2) a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, which in part related to the failure to investigate the alibi witnesses just mentioned; and (3) a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims on direct appeal. See generally id. The trial court denied the petition, and the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the denial on April 26, 2017. Id.

         Mosley now seeks habeas corpus relief on all of the grounds raised both on direct appeal and in his state-court postconviction petition. An in-depth analysis of the merits of Mosley's habeas petition is unnecessary, though, because Mosley's claims for relief are plainly barred by the relevant statute of limitations.

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(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 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 post-conviction 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.