United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.
Petitioner Geoffrey Dalton pleaded guilty to a charge of criminal sexual assault in the Circuit Court of Adams County, Illinois, in May, 2009. He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment to be followed by an indeterminate term of mandatory supervised release, ranging from three years to life.
On August 7, 2013, Dalton filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the imposition of the indeterminate term of supervised release. This matter is now before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss § 2254 Petition as Time-Barred. (Doc. 11). Petitioner responded to the motion at Doc. 15.
Dalton was sentenced on June 24, 2009. At sentencing, the judge informed him that his sentence included a mandatory supervised release term of three years, but that he was also subject to an extended term of supervised release to be determined by the "Department of Corrections, the administrative authorities." Doc. 1, pp. 11-12. Dalton did not file a direct appeal. Doc. 1, pp. 1-2.
Petitioner filed a state post-conviction petition on May 28, 2010, challenging the imposition of the indeterminate term of supervised release. Doc. 11, Ex. A. The petition was denied, and Dalton appealed. After the Appellate Court affirmed, petitioner filed a PLA to the Supreme Court of Illinois. The PLA was denied on September 26, 2012. Doc. 1, p. 19.
II. Applicable Legal Standards
28 U.S.C. § 2244 creates a one-year limitation period for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), a person convicted in state court must file his federal habeas petition within one year of 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.
The one-year statute of limitations is tolled during the pendency of a "properly-filed" state post-conviction petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
The one-year statute of limitations is also "subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases." Holland v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2560 (2010). Equitable tolling applies only where the petitioner shows "(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way' and prevented timely filing." Holland, 130 S.Ct. at 2562, citing Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 1814 (2005). The Supreme Court has emphasized that ...