The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge
This matter is now before the Court on Petitioner, Andrew DuBois' ("DuBois"), Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss [#9] is GRANTED, and the § 2254 Petition [#1] is DISMISSED.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In October 2000, DuBois was convicted of two counts of criminal sexual assault and one count of driving on a revoked licence following a bench trial in the Circuit Court of McLean County. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of six years' imprisonment on each of the sexual assault counts and a consecutive three year term for driving while his license was revoked. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court on January 17, 2002, and he was denied leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court on April 30, 2002.
On October 2, 2002, DuBois filed a post-conviction petition with the circuit court under the Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act. The petition was dismissed as frivolous, and on appeal, his counsel was allowed to withdraw pursuant to Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987). On November 21, 2003, the trial court's judgment was affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court denied DuBois' Petition for Leave to Appeal on September 29, 2005, and he did not file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
DuBois also filed a second successive post-conviction petition on July 3, 2003. The petition was denied as frivolous, and the denial was affirmed on appeal in January 2005. His Petition for Leave to Appeal was denied by the Illinois Supreme Court on March 30, 2005, and there is record indicating that he ever pursued a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
DuBois now brings the present action seeking federal review of his state court proceedings. In his Petition, he raises essentially four arguments: (1) his right to due process was violated by his wrongful conviction; (2) his Miranda rights were violated; (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) his sentence was excessive. This Order follows.
There are statutory time limits which govern whether a district court can entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The present case is covered by 28 U.S.C. § 2244, which states in relevant part:
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 was newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review;
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through ...