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.

Ronald Young v. Michael Atchison

June 26, 2012

RONALD YOUNG, PETITIONER,
v.
MICHAEL ATCHISON, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael P. McCUSKEY U.S. District Judge

E-FILED

Tuesday, 26 June, 2012 02:29:55 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

OPINION

On August 29, 2011, Petitioner, Ronald Young, filed a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (#1). On April 5, 2012, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss (#8), arguing that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#1) should be dismissed as time barred because it was filed more than one year after Petitioner's conviction and sentence became final. This court has carefully reviewed the record in this case and the arguments of the parties. Following this careful and thorough review, this court agrees with Respondent that the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#1) is not timely and therefore must be dismissed.

FACTS

In April 2004, a jury convicted the Petitioner, Ronald Young, of first degree murder under 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/9-1(a)(1). On May 25, 2004, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to sixty-five years in prison. Petitioner appealed and on September 7, 2005, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. Petitioner filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal ("PLA") that the Illinois Supreme Court denied on December 1, 2005. There is no indication that the Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court following the denial of his PLA.

On August 27, 2007, Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition pursuant to 725 Ill. Comp. State. 5/122-1, et seq. in the Circuit Court of Champaign County. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the Circuit Court of Champaign County dismissed the petition. Petitioner then filed a motion to reconsider in the Circuit Court of Champaign County, which was denied. The two cases were consolidated for state appellate review. On May 11, 2010 the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the decisions of the Circuit Court of Champaign County. Petitioner filed a PLA that the Illinois Supreme Court denied on September 29, 2010. There is no indication that the Petitioner filed for a writ of certiorari following the denial of his post-conviction PLA.

On August 29, 2011, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#1). Petitioner raises five claims: (1) the trial court erred in admitting statements made by the victim prior to his death; (2) the trial court erred in admitting testimony of Trent Williams regarding an out-of-court statement made by the victim; (3) the evidence was insufficient to prove Petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; (4) the trial court erred in denying the jury's request for transcripts of witnesses' testimony; and (5) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. On April 5, 2012, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss (#8), explaining that the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#1) was not timely filed. Petitioner did not file a Response to the Motion to Dismiss (#8).

ANALYSIS

"[A] district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A Section 2254 petition has a one-year statute of limitations. According to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d):

(1) A 1-year period of limitations shall apply to an application for writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitations 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 the 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 ...


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.