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.

Rodriguez v. Redman

United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma

July 27, 2017

RUBEN RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner,
v.
RODNEY REDMAN, Warden, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN E. DOWDELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This is a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus action.[1] Petitioner, a state inmate appearing pro se, filed his petition (Doc. 1) on April 13, 2016. In response to the petition, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss petition for writ of habeas corpus as time barred (Doc. 15), along with a supporting brief (Doc. 16). Petitioner filed a response (Doc. 17). For the reasons discussed below, Respondent's motion to dismiss is granted and the petition is dismissed with prejudice.

         BACKGROUND

         The record reflects that, on April 21, 1999, Petitioner entered a blind plea of guilty to Robbery With Firearms in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-1998-873. See Doc. 16-2. Petitioner was subsequently sentenced to twenty years imprisonment with all but the first five years suspended. See Docs. 16-3, 16-4.

         On September 11, 2007, the State filed the first application to revoke Petitioner's suspended sentence (Doc. 16-6). Thereafter, the State filed at least two (2) amended applications to revoke, see Doc. 16-7, 16-8. On January 21, 2014, Petitioner was charged with Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute (Methamphetamine) (Count 1), and Use of a Surveillance Camera While In Commission of a Felony (Count 2), in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2014-551. See Doc. 16-10. On February 3, 2014, another amended application to revoke was filed in Case No. CF-1998-873, alleging that Petitioner had violated the terms of his suspended sentence by committing the new crimes charged in Case No. CF-2014-551. See Doc. 16-11. A hearing on the amended application to revoke was held that sane day. See Doc. 16-13; Doc. 1 at 10-73, Tr. App. Revoke Hr'g. At the conclusion of the hearing, the State's amended application to revoke was granted and the trial court revoked ten (10) years of the suspended sentence. See Doc. 16-13. Petitioner was advised of his appeal rights, see Doc. 1 at 72. However, Petitioner failed to appeal the trial court's order partially revoking the suspended sentence.

         On December 2, 2014, Petitioner, while represented by counsel, filed a motion for judicial review. See Doc. 16-1 at 21. Through counsel, Petitioner and the prosecutor reached an agreement that, in exchange for revocation of the full 15 year suspended sentence in Case No. CF-1998-873, the charges filed in Case No. CF-2014-551 would be dismissed. Id. On January 30, 2015, the trial court judge approved the agreement and modified Petitioner's revoked sentence to fifteen (15) years. See Doc. 16-14, 16-15. On April 8, 2015, the State formally dismissed the charges filed in Case No. CF-2014-551. See Doc. 16-16.

         On June 8, 2015, Petitioner filed a pro se motion for appeal out of time, seeking to appeal the trial court's order partially revoking his suspended sentence. See Doc. 16-17. After the State filed a response to the motion (Doc. 16-18) and Petitioner filed a reply (Doc. 16-19), Petitioner filed, on February 8, 2016, a petition for writ of mandamus at the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) (Doc. 16-22). On February 29, 2016, the OCCA declined jurisdiction, finding that Petitioner had failed to serve the adverse party (Doc. 16-23 at 4).

         On April 13, 2016, Petitioner filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1). He raises one (1) ground of error, as follows:

Ground 1: The trial court lacked jurisdiction to revolk [sic] petitioner's sentence where the hearing on the state's application to revolk [sic] was outside the twenty-day time limit imposed by 22 O.S. § 991(b).

See Doc. 1 at 5. In response to the petition, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 7), arguing that the petition is time barred.

         ANALYSIS

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), enacted April 24, 1996, established a one-year limitations period for habeas corpus petitions as follows:

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person 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 ...

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.