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.

Martorana v. Rogers

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division

January 19, 2018

MICHELLE MARTORANA
v.
WARDEN JAMES ROGERS

          HICKS JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Mark L. Hornsby U.S. Magistrate Judge

         In accordance with the standing order of this court, this matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for review, report and recommendation.

         STATEMENT OF CLAIM

         Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by pro se petitioner Michelle Martorana (“Petitioner”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. This petition was received and filed in this court on October 28, 2015. Petitioner is incarcerated at the Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women in St. Gabriel, Louisiana. She challenges her state court conviction and sentence. She names Warden James Rogers as respondent.

         On December 19, 2008, Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of attempted second degree murder in the Louisiana Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court, Parish of Bossier. On March 3, 2009, she was sentenced to 48 years imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

         In support of this petition, Petitioner alleges (1) her sentence is illegal because the evidence does not support a crime of attempt, (2) her sentence is illegal because it is internally contradictory, (3) her sentence is illegal because it was imposed under a statute that is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, (4) her sentence is illegal because her guilty plea was invalid because of ineffective assistance of counsel, (5) her sentence is illegal because the statute is void for vagueness.

         For the reasons that follow, Petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested and his petition should be dismissed because it is barred by the one-year limitation period of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2244.

         LAW AND ANALYSIS

         On April 24, 1996, the AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C. § 2244 to provide for a “1-year period of limitation [that] shall apply to an application for writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” The limitation period runs from the latest of four possible dates, as follows[1]:

1. the date “the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review”;
2. the date “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”;
3. the date that “the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, ” if it is newly recognized and made retroactively applicable; or
4. the date “the factual predicate of the claim . . . presented could have been discovered through . . . due ...

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.