United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. Hornsby, U.S. Magistrate Judge.
accordance with the standing order of this court, this matter
was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for review,
report, and recommendation.
the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus
filed by pro se petitioner Tyrone Tyrell Johnson
(“Petitioner”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254.
This petition was received and filed in this court on
December 21, 2017. Petitioner is incarcerated at the David
Wade Correctional Center in Homer, Louisiana. He challenges
his state court convictions and sentences. He names Warden
Jerry Goodwin as respondent.
21, 2013, Petitioner was convicted in Louisiana's Second
Judicial District Court, Parish of Bienville of two counts of
possession with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to ten
years imprisonment at hard labor as to each count. The trial
court ordered the sentences to run consecutively.
support of this petition, Petitioner alleges (1) he was
denied the right to appellate review, a complete copy of the
record, and his counsel failed to file an appeal, (2) he
received ineffective assistance of counsel, (3) the evidence
was insufficient to support his convictions, and (4) his
sentences are excessive.
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. Section 2244.
April 24, 1996, the AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C. Section 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. 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