United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
JAMES G. WILSON, Petitioner,
SUPERINTENDENT Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, Respondent.
ENTRY DISCUSSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge
reasons explained in this Entry, petitioner James
Wilson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be
denied and the action dismissed with
prejudice because it was filed beyond the one-year
statute of limitations. In addition, the Court finds that a
certificate of appealability should not issue.
is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Wabash
Valley Correctional Facility who seeks a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
was convicted of attempted murder by a jury on August 20,
2014, in Marion County court. He is currently serving a
forty-year sentence for this crime. On direct appeal, the
Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence
on June 29, 2015. The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer
on October 5, 2015.
December 9, 2015, Wilson filed a pro se motion
purporting to be a state petition for habeas corpus relief in
the Sullivan Superior Court. The Sullivan Superior Court
determined that Wilson's motion was instead a petition
for post-conviction relief and forwarded the petition to the
court of conviction, the Marion Superior Court.
Post-conviction proceedings were initiated in Marion County
on January 7, 2016. On May 17, 2016, Wilson filed a motion to
withdraw his post-conviction petition without prejudice. This
motion was granted in a margin entry on May 18, 2016.
Although he did not reinstate post-conviction proceedings,
Wilson filed a second motion to withdraw his post-conviction
petition without prejudice on July 19, 2016, and that motion
was granted in a margin entry on July 21, 2016.
has filed for federal habeas relief in this court on at least
six prior occasions, with all prior petitions resulting in
dismissal without prejudice. He filed the present petition
for a writ of habeas corpus on June 15, 2017.
raises four claims: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel at
trial and on appeal; (2) a double jeopardy claim; (3) denial
of due process; and (4) a general claim based on the
“chapter of claims at habeas citebook.” The
respondent argues that Wilson's claims are barred by the
statute of limitations and are procedurally defaulted.
Because the statute of limitations bars Wilson's
petition, the Court need not address whether his claims are
attempt to “curb delays, to prevent
‘retrials' on federal habeas, and to give effect to
state convictions to the extent possible under law, ”
Congress, as part of the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996, revised several of the statutes
governing federal habeas relief. Williams v. Taylor,
529 U.S. 362, 404 (2000). Along with triggering dates not
applicable here, “[u]nder 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(1)(A), a state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief
has just one year after his conviction becomes final in state
court to file his federal petition.” Gladney v.
Pollard, 799 F.3d 889, 894 (7th Cir.
2015). “The one-year clock is stopped,
however, during the time the petitioner's ‘properly
filed' application for state postconviction relief
‘is pending.'” Day v. McDonough, 547
U.S. 198, 201 (2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)).
Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer of Wilson's direct
appeal on October 15, 2015. His conviction became final 90
days after this date-that is, the time in which he had to
petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme
Court-which was January 13, 2016. See Gonzalez v.
Thaler, 132 S.Ct. 641, 653-54 (2012) (“[T]he
judgment becomes final . . . when the time for pursuing
direct review . . . expires.”). But because Wilson had
already filed a petition for post-conviction relief, the
statute of limitations to file a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus did not start running. His limitations period
remained tolled until his post-conviction petition was
dismissed without prejudice-at Wilson's request-on May
18, 2016. Because 393 days passed between the voluntary
dismissal of his post-conviction petition and the filing of
the present habeas petition, on June 15, 2017, this habeas
petition is untimely.
petition is untimely even if the statute of limitations was
tolled when Wilson filed a motion to correct erroneous
sentence on October 31, 2016, and a motion to modify his
sentence on December 22, 2016. Those motions were pending for
a total of only 14 days before the trial court denied them.
Even if those motions tolled the statute of limitations, 379
days passed from the time Wilson dismissed his petition for
post-conviction relief and he filed this case. The
post-judgment motions therefore did not toll the statute of
limitations long enough to make the present petition timely.
And Wilson's repeated prior petitions for habeas relief
did not toll the limitation period. See Duncan v.
Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 172 (2001) (“a properly
filed federal habeas petition does not toll the limitation
has presented a number of filings in this case that appear to
be meant to be in support of his habeas petition, but none of
those filings addresses the passage of the statute of
limitations. This is despite the fact that he was
specifically instructed by the Court to file a reply in
support of his habeas petition and to focus his reply on the
arguments presented by the respondent. Dkt. 17.
short, Wilson had one year from the time his conviction
became final to file this petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. That period was tolled while his petition for
post-conviction relief was pending and may have been tolled
while his post-judgment motions were pending. But he still
filed this petition beyond the one-year statute of
limitations. It therefore ...