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.

Marsh v. Goodwin

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

November 13, 2019

STEVEN MARSH
v.
WARDEN GOODWIN

         SECTION P

          TERRY A. DOUGHTY, JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KAREN L. HAYES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Petitioner Steven Marsh, a prisoner in the custody of Louisiana's Department of Corrections proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on approximately October 7, 2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2019, under 2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">28 U.S.C. § 2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">22');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">254. [doc. # 1]. Petitioner attacks his conviction for indecent behavior with a juvenile under the age of eighteen, as well as the fifteen-year prison sentence imposed by the Fifth Judicial District Court, Richland Parish.[1" name="FN1" id= "FN1">1]For the following reasons, the Court should dismiss this Petition as untimely.

         Background

         On August 7, 2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2018, Petitioner pled guilty to indecent behavior with a juvenile under the age of eighteen, and the trial judge sentenced him to “a term of imprisonment at hard labor for a period of fifteen (15) years, with . . . two (2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2) years of that to be served without benefit . . . .” [doc. # 1-2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2, pp. 2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">27-33]. Petitioner did not pursue a direct appeal or post-conviction relief. [doc. # 5, pp. 2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2-4, 13].

         Petitioner filed the instant Petition on approximately October 7, 2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2019, raising the following assignments of error: (1) Assistant District Attorney Doug Wheeler threatened him with life in prison if he proceeded to trial, which forced him to accept a plea bargain; (2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2) his attorney, Tammy Weaver, “never allowed him to see or hear any interviews” and constantly “kept [him] in the dark”; (3) he was never “presented with an indictment”; (4) the indictment did not describe “the essential facts or elements of what it takes to commit the crime of first degree rape”; (5) the assistant district attorney and the trial judge altered the indictment without resubmitting it to the grand jury; (6) he was arrested without probable cause; (7) he was never arraigned; and (8) his counsel pressured him to plead guilty without “even checking into” Petitioner's assertion that the accusations were false. [doc. #s 1, pp. 2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2-4, 8, 11, 14, 15; 5, pp. 18-19].

         Law and Analysis

         Title 2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">28 U.S.C. § 2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">22');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">244(d)(1) provides a one-year statute of limitation for filing habeas corpus applications by persons in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of-

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which 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;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">28 U.S.C. § 2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">22');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">2');">244(d)(1).

         Here, with respect to subsection “C” above, Petitioner's claims do not rely on a constitutional right newly recognized by the United States Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. With respect to subsection “D, ” Petitioner does not contend that “the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented” were ...


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.