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.

James Singleton v. Joseph Yurkovich

December 11, 2012

JAMES SINGLETON, PETITIONER,
v.
JOSEPH YURKOVICH, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Samuel Der-yeghiayan, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is a matter before the court on Respondent's motion to dismiss Petitioner James Singleton's (Singleton) pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus (Petition) brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons stated below, the court grants the motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND

On January 16, 2008, Singleton pled guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to twenty-six years of imprisonment, which was to be served consecutively to a separate conviction in another case. Singleton did not file a direct appeal and did not move to withdraw his guilty plea. On July 23, 2008, Singleton filed a post-conviction petition. On September 26, 2008, the state trial court dismissed the post-conviction petition. On January 5, 2009, Singleton moved for leave to file a late notice of appeal (NOA), claiming that he did not receive timely notice of the dismissal entered on September 26, 2008. On January 16, 2009, the trial court denied this motion, and on February 18, 2009, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court denial of Singleton's motion to file a late NOA. Singleton filed a petition for rehearing that was denied by the Illinois Appellate Court on March 19, 2009. Singleton then filed a petition for leave to appeal (PLA) to the Illinois Supreme Court, and on May 28, 2009, the Illinois Supreme Court denied the PLA.

On October 23, 2009, Singleton filed a complaint in the state court seeking habeas relief, and on February 11, 2010, the trial court denied the request for habeas relief. Singleton appealed this decision and also filed for a writ of habeas corpus with this court on April 29, 2010. On May 5, 2010, this court dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice because Singleton's appeal of the denial of his state habeas complaint remained pending. On June 21, 2010, this court denied Singleton's request for certificate of appealability (CA). On October 14, 2010, the Seventh Circuit also denied the CA, terminating the appeal. On February 7, 2011, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the state trial court's denial of habeas relief. Singleton filed another PLA, which was denied by the Illinois Supreme Court on May 25, 2011.

While his state habeas appeal was still pending, on November 5, 2012, Singleton moved the state trial court for leave to file a successive post-conviction petition. The trial court denied this motion on December 15, 2010, and the Illinois Appellate Court later affirmed this decision on November 16, 2011. Singleton then filed a PLA, which was denied by the Illinois Supreme Court on March 28, 2012. On May 15, 2012, Singleton filed the instant Petition. Respondent now moves to dismiss the Petition as untimely.

LEGAL STANDARD

The statute of limitations for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), which states the following:

(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 ...


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.