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.

Burtis v. Vannoy

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

January 2, 2019

SHAWN BURTIS #532364
v.
DARRYL VANNOY, ET AL.

          NOTICE

          RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court.

         In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen (14) days after being served with the attached Report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which have been accepted by the District Court.

         ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.

         MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

         This matter comes before the Court on the petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. There is no need for oral argument or for an evidentiary hearing.

         On June 30, 2017, the pro se petitioner, an inmate confined at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana, filed this habeas corpus proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, attacking his criminal conviction and sentence entered in 2007 in the Eighteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Iberville, State of Louisiana. The petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

         Pertinent Procedural History

         At the conclusion of a jury trial, the petitioner was found guilty of two counts of molestation of a juvenile. On December 3, 2007, the petitioner was sentenced to pay a $10, 000 fine on each count, and to fifteen years imprisonment on each count, to be served consecutively.

         The petitioner appealed his conviction or sentence, which were affirmed on September 23, 2008. See State v. Burtis, 08-373 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/23/08), 2008 WL 4332529. Thereafter, the petitioner sought further review, which was denied by the Louisiana Supreme Court on May 15, 2009. See State v. Burtis, 08-2420 (La. 5/15/09), 8 So.3d 581.

         On April 15, 2011, the petitioner filed a counseled Application for Post-Conviction Relief, which was denied by the trial court on June 4, 2012. The petitioner sought further review of the denial of his PCR application, which was denied by the First Circuit, and later by the Louisiana Supreme Court on January 18, 2013. See State v. Burtis, 12-2412 (La. 1/18/2013), 107 So.3d 630.

         The petitioner filed a second Application for Post-Conviction Relief on or about April 30, 2013, which was denied by the trial court on July 22, 2015. The petitioner sought further review of the denial of his second PCR application, which was denied by the First Circuit, and later by the Louisiana Supreme Court on April 7, 2017. See State ex rel. Burtis v. State, 15-2200 (La. 4/7/17), 215 So.3d 228. On June 30, 2017, the petitioner filed the present application.

         Applicable Law and Analysis

         Based upon the foregoing, this Court concludes that the petitioner's application is untimely. In this regard, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), there is a one-year statute of limitations applicable to federal habeas corpus claims brought by prisoners in state custody. This limitations period begins to run on the date that the judgment becomes final through the conclusion of direct review or through the expiration of time for seeking such review. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). As provided by the referenced statute, the time during which a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is thereafter pending before the state courts with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim shall not be counted toward any part of the one-year limitations period. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). However, the time during which there are no properly filed post-conviction or other collateral review proceedings pending does count toward calculation of the one-year period. To be considered “properly filed” for purposes of § 2244(d)(2), an application's delivery and acceptance must be in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 413 (2005), citing Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000). Further, a properly-filed state ...


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.