United States District Court, D. Minnesota
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
R. THORSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Larry Jermaine McCool has filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus challenging the validity of a conviction of a
first-degree controlled-substance crime in Minnesota 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. Because McCool's habeas petition is untimely, it
is recommended that this matter be dismissed.
was convicted after a jury trial in April and May 2013. On
November 24, 2014, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed
the conviction on direct appeal. See State v.
McCool, No. A13-2128, 2014 WL 6608923 (Minn.Ct.App. Nov.
24, 2014). The Minnesota Supreme Court denied McCool's
petition for review on January 20, 2015. McCool did not seek
a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court.
September 27, 2016, McCool filed a petition for
post-conviction relief in the state courts. See
Petition at 16 (Doc. No. 1). That petition was denied by the
trial court as procedurally barred, and the denial was
affirmed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. See
McCool v. State, No. A17-1303, 2018 WL 1462334
(Minn.Ct.App. Mar. 26, 2018).
was given until May 25, 2018, to file a petition for review
with the Minnesota Supreme Court (an extension of the
ordinary period for filing a petition for review under state
law), but he failed to timely submit his petition for review
by that date, and his appeal was dismissed.
now seeks federal habeas corpus relief on five grounds. An
in-depth analysis of the merits of McCool's claims is
unnecessary, though, because McCool's petition is 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.
final two of those provisions are irrelevant here. None of
McCool's claims asserts a newly recognized constitutional
right; nor do any of his claims depend upon a factual
predicate that could not have been discovered prior to the
time of his direct appeal.
the one-year limitations period for McCool is established by
either § 2244(d)(1)(A) or § 2244(d)(1)(B).
date on which McCool's conviction became final is readily
determinable. McCool's petition for review on direct
appeal was denied by the Minnesota Supreme Court on January
20, 2015. McCool then had 90 days in which to file a petition
for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme
Court. He failed to do so. Under § 2244(d)(1)(A), then,
McCool reached “the conclusion of direct review”
on April 20, 2015-the deadline for filing a petition for a