The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Mills, U.S. District Judge
Petitioner Gerald Smith ("Smith") brought this habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The state responded by filing a motion for summary judgment*fn1 asserting that the petition was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.
In 1986, Smith was convicted by a jury of attempted murder, aggravated criminal sexual assault, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated battery. People v. Smith, 154 Ill. App. 3d 837, 507 N.E.2d 543, 545 (1987). He was sentenced to 60 years for the attempted murder, 60 years for the aggravated criminal sexual assault, and 30 years for the aggravated kidnapping. The appellate court affirmed the convictions on April 30, 1987. Id. at 552. Petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal in the Illinois Supreme Court on June 26, 1987, and it was denied on October 7, 1987. People v. Smith, 116 Ill.2d 572, 515 N.E.2d 122.
Over a decade later, on October 22, 1997, Smith filed a motion seeking leave to file a post-conviction petition with a state trial court. The motion was denied as untimely. On April 21, 1999, the appellate court affirmed, People v. Smith, 303 Ill. App. 3d 1120, 747 N.E.2d 1116 (unpublished), and the Illinois Supreme Court denied a petition for leave to appeal on October 6, 1999, People v. Smith, 185 Ill.2d 658, 720 N.E.2d 1103.
On April 8, 2001, Smith filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the state trial court. Relief was denied on the merits on May 11, 2001. People v. Smith, No. 85-CF-327 (Sangamon Circuit Ct.). On July 29, 2003, the appellate court affirmed. People v. Smith, No. 4-01-0910 (Ill. App. Ct.). On October 7, 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court denied Smith's petition for leave to appeal. People v. Smith, 205 Ill.2d 633, 803 N.E.2d 497. Smith filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which the United States Supreme Court denied on March 1, 2004. Smith v. Illinois, 540 U.S. 1225.
On July 19, 2005, Smith filed a motion seeking leave to file a petition for habeas relief in the Illinois Supreme Court. The petition was denied on September 16, 2005. Smith v. Birkey, No. 11521 (Ill.).
Finally, on August 22, 2006, approximately two decades after his original conviction, Smith filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
On April 24, 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, established new rules governing the timeliness of habeas petitions. Under § 2244(d)(1), a petitioner in custody pursuant to a state judgment is required to file an application for a writ of habeas corpus within a one-year period. In order to decide whether this year expired before Smith filed his petition, this Court must determine (1) when the limitations period began to run and (2) whether that period should be tolled.
B. Commencement of the Limitations Period
The one-year limitations period for habeas actions begins to run on one of four possible dates, as determined under § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D). While Smith appears to contend that§ 2244(d)(1)(B) provides the relevant ...