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.

Mosier v. Warden

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division

December 20, 2017

CHARLES DEAN MOSIER, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, Respondent.

          ENTRY DISCUSSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

          Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge.

         Petitioner Charles Mosier, an inmate at the Putnamville Correctional Facility, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 1992 conviction for public intoxication and his 1993 convictions for four counts of intimidation of law enforcement, one count of criminal mischief, and of being an habitual offender. Mosier was sentenced to 180 days for the public intoxication charge and forty-five years for the other convictions. For the reasons that follow, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

         I. Factual and Procedural Background

         In May of 1992, Mosier was charged with intimidation to law enforcement and public intoxication. On October 7, 1992, Mosier pleaded guilty to Count II, public intoxication and the trial court sentenced him to 180 days. On November 6, 1992, Mosier was charged with four counts of intimidation to a law enforcement officer, criminal mischief, and alleged to be a habitual offender.

         On January 13, 1993, Mosier is found guilty as charged and adjudicated a habitual offender. On January 18, the trial court sentenced Mosier to an aggregate sentence of forty-five years.

         Mosier did not appeal his conviction for public intoxication. On November 10, 1992, the trial court released Mosier from his 180-day sentence. Mosier appealed the other convictions and challenged the trial court's finding that he was competent, that he did not validly waive his right to counsel, that the trial court erred in denying his request for a continuance, the sufficiency of the evidence of criminal mischief, and the sufficiency of the evidence regarding habitual offender status. On July 28, 1994, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Mosier's conviction and sentence; Mosier did not seek transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court. On February 24, 2012, Mosier filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the state trial court challenging his public intoxication and other convictions. On October 5, 2012, the trial court denied Mosier relief. Mosier appealed, but the Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on March 15, 2013, after Mosier repeatedly failed to file a corrected brief and appendix after tendering defective materials.

         On June 29, 2017, Mosier filed the present petition for habeas relief. Mosier challenges his convictions in both state court cases.

         II. Discussion

         Mosier raises a number of claims in support of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The respondent contends that Mosier is not in custody on the public intoxication conviction and that petition is barred by AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations.

         A. Public Intoxication

         The respondent first argues that Mosier cannot obtain habeas relief on his public intoxication conviction because he is no longer in custody under that conviction. Mosier was convicted in 1992 of public intoxication and sentenced to 180 days. He was released from that sentence on November 10, 1992.

         “[I]n all habeas corpus proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the successful petitioner must demonstrate that he ‘is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.'” Brown v. Watters, 599 F.3d 602, 611 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)). “It is the custody itself that must violate the Constitution. Accordingly, prisoners who are not seeking earlier or immediate release are not seeking habeas corpus relief.” Washington v. Smith, 564 F.3d 1350, 1350 (7th Cir. 2009). In other words, “a habeas corpus petition must attack the fact or duration of one's sentence; if it does not, it does not state a proper basis for relief.” Id. Because Mosier is not “in custody” on that conviction, he cannot obtain habeas relief on it.

         B. Statute of Limitations

         The respondent also argues that Mosier's claims are time-barred because it was filed more than a year after ...


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.