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.

Brown v. Lashbrook

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division

May 11, 2018

CHARMELL BROWN, Petitioner,
v.
JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, Warden, Menard Correctional Center, Respondent.

          OPINION

          SUE E. MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Petitioner Charmell Brown, proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody (d/e 1), a Motion to File a Late Federal Habeas (d/e 2), and a corrected Petition (d/e 3). Respondent Jacqueline Lashbrook moves to dismiss the § 2254 Petition as time-barred. Because the § 2254 Petition is untimely, the Motion to Dismiss (d/e 8) is GRANTED. A certificate of appealability is GRANTED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The Court takes the following information from Petitioner's § 2254 Petition[1] and the public records attached to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss.[2] The Court can take judicial notice of public records. See United States ex rel. Santiago v. Hinsley, 297 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1068 n.4 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (involving summary dismissal of a § 2254 motion where the court took judicial notice of public records about the petitioner's prior state court litigation).

         In December 2009, a Champaign County, Illinois jury found Petitioner guilty of first degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm. On May 27, 2010, Petitioner was sentenced to 60 years' imprisonment for first degree murder and 30 years' imprisonment for aggravated battery with a firearm with the sentences to run consecutively. Petitioner appealed, and the appellate court affirmed. People v. Brown, No. 4-10-0409 (June 10, 2011) (unpublished order filed under Supreme Court Rule 23). On May 30, 2012, the Illinois Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. Petitioner did not file a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.

         On March 15, 2013, Petitioner filed a postconviction petition pursuant to 725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. in the Champaign County Circuit Court. On April 1, 2013, the trial court summarily denied the postconviction petition. The appellate court affirmed, and the Illinois Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for leave to appeal on September 30, 2015.

         On October 11, 2016, Petitioner filed a successive postconviction petition, which the state trial court denied on February 8, 2017. Petitioner did not appeal.

         On September 20, 2017, Petitioner filed his unsigned Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody (d/e 1) in this Court. He also filed an unsigned Motion to File a Late Federal Habeas (d/e 2). On September 21, 2017, this Court directed Petitioner to pay the $5 filing fee or file a petition to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court also directed Petitioner to file a copy of his Petition signed under penalty of perjury. Petitioner has paid the filing fee and filed a signed copy of his Petition (d/e 3). The Court treats the corrected Petition as the operative § 2254 Petition.

         On November 1, 2017, the Court found summary dismissal was not warranted and directed Respondent to respond to the Petition. Respondent has moved to dismiss Petitioner's § 2254 Petition as untimely. Petitioner has not filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss, despite the Court sua sponte granting Petitioner additional time to respond.

         II. ANALYSIS

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act provides for a one-year period of limitation for applications for writs of habeas corpus. Section 2244(d)(1) provides as follows:

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 ...

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.