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.

Mathis v. State

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

March 19, 2019

SHUNEAL O. MATHIS
v.
STATE OF LOUISIANA

         SECTION P

          TERRY A. DOUGHTY JUDGE.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Karen L. Hayes United States Magistrate Judge.

         Petitioner Shuneal O. Mathis, a prisoner in the custody of Louisiana&#3');">39;s Department of Corrections proceeding pro se, filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on approximately January 25, 201');">19, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [doc. # 1');">1]. Petitioner attacks his manslaughter and attempted armed robbery convictions, as well as the two forty-year concurrent sentences imposed by the Fifth Judicial District Court, Franklin Parish.[1');">1" name="FN1');">1" id="FN1');">1">1');">1] For the following reasons, it is recommended that the Petition be dismissed.

         Background

         On October 1');">15, 201');">14, Petitioner pled guilty to manslaughter and attempted armed robbery before the Fifth Judicial District Court, Franklin Parish. [doc. # 1');">1, p. 1');">1]. The same day, the trial judge sentenced Petitioner to forty years of imprisonment for manslaughter and to a concurrent sentence of forty years of imprisonment for attempted armed robbery. Id. Petitioner did not pursue a direct appeal. Id. at 2.

         On September 26, 201');">16, Petitioner filed an application for post-conviction relief before the Fifth Judicial District Court, Franklin Parish. Id. at 3');">3. The trial court denied Petitioner&#3');">39;s application on February 1');">15, 201');">17. [doc. #s 1');">1, p. 6; 1');">1-3');">3, p. 4]. The Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal denied Petitioner&#3');">39;s application for supervisory review on September 28, 201');">17. [doc. # 1');">1-3');">3, p. 3');">3]. The Supreme Court of Louisiana denied Petitioner&#3');">39;s application for supervisory and/or remedial writs on December 1');">17, 201');">18. Id. at 1');">1-2; State ex rel. Mathis v. State, 201');">17-1');">181');">15 (La. 1');">12/1');">17/1');">18), 259 So.3');">3d 3');">33');">33');">3');">259 So.3');">3d 3');">33');">33');">3.

         Petitioner filed the instant Petition on approximately January 25, 201');">19, [2" name="FN2" id="FN2">2] raising the following assignments of error: (1');">1) his “guilty plea was not knowing and intelligently entered where the court[, ] against evidence supporting the factual basis for the guilty plea[, ] advised that having an intent to rob made [Petitioner] a principal to the homicide, a crime perpetrated after [Petitioner&#3');">39;s] expressed withdrawal from further participation”; (2) he was subjected to double jeopardy; (3');">3) his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to secure police and crime lab reports, failing to apply pertinent jurisprudence, failing to adequately prepare, and advising him to plead guilty to manslaughter, a crime to which “he was never a party”; and (4) his “guilty plea was not knowing and intelligently entered where the court erroneously informed him that being in the vehicle with the intent to commit an armed robbery made him a party to that homicide.” [doc. # 1');">1-2, p. 2].

         Law and Analysis

         Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1');">1) provides a one-year statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus applications by persons in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court. This limitation period generally runs from “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1');">1)(A).[3');">3" name="FN3');">3" id="FN3');">3">3');">3] Under La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 91');">14(B), a “motion for an appeal must be made no later than: (1');">1) Thirty days after the rendition of the judgment or ruling from which the appeal is taken.”

         Here, the trial judge sentenced Petitioner on October 1');">15, 201');">14. [doc. # 1');">1, p. 1');">1]. As Petitioner did not file a direct appeal, his conviction became final thirty days later, on November 1');">14, 201');">14. See State v. Williams, 1');">16-3');">32 (La.App. 5 Cir. 8/24/1');">16), 1');">199 So.3');">3d 1');">1205');">1');">199 So.3');">3d 1');">1205, 1');">1209 (“It is well established that a defendant may only appeal from a final judgment of conviction when sentence has been imposed.”).

         Because Petitioner&#3');">39;s conviction became final on November 1');">14, 201');">14, Petitioner had one year, or until November 1');">14, 201');">15, to file a federal habeas corpus petition. However, because November 1');">14, 201');">15, was a Saturday, the one-year period was extended to the following Monday, or November 1');">16, 201');">15.[4] Petitioner did not file the instant Petition until, at the earliest, January 22, 201');">19. [doc. # 1');">1, p. 1');">15]. Thus, Petitioner&#3');">39;s claims are barred by the one-year limitation period unless Petitioner extended the November 1');">16, 201');">15 deadline through statutory or equitable tolling.

         I. Statutory Tolling

         The statutory tolling provision in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) provides, “[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review . . . is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation . . . .” However, any lapse of time before the proper filing of an application for post-conviction relief in state court is counted against the one-year limitations period, Flanagan v. Johnson, 1');">154 F.3');">3d 1');">196');">1');">154 F.3');">3d 1');">196, 1');">199 n.1');">1 (5th Cir. 1');">1998), and the ...


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.