Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Bickham v. Allbaugh
United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
August 28, 2017
DERRICK E. BICKHAM, Petitioner,
JOE M. ALLBAUGH, DOC Director, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
A. White United States District Judge.
action is before the Court on Respondent's motion to
dismiss Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as barred by the statute of
limitations (Dkt. 7). Petitioner, a pro se prisoner in the
custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, is
incarcerated at Lawton Correctional Facility in Lawton,
Oklahoma. He is challenging his convictions and sentences in
three Pittsburg County District Court Cases: Case No.
CF-2009-312 for Feloniously Pointing a Firearm (Count 1) and
Felon in Possession of a Firearm (Count 2), both after former
conviction of two or more felonies; Case No. CF-2009-313 for
Feloniously Pointing a Firearm (Count 1) and Felon in
Possession of a Firearm (Count 2), both after former
conviction of two or more felonies; and Case No. CF-2009-349
for First Degree Robbery (Count 1), after former conviction
of two or more felonies (Dkt. 8-1 at 1-7). He raises three
grounds for relief in his petition:
I. Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
II. Ineffective assistance of trial counsel, conflict of
III. The trial court abused its discretion and improperly
applied state and federal law by assessing punishment and
sentencing against Petitioner without determining whether
petitioner was a mentally ill or insane person, after having
full knowledge of Petitioner's lengthy mental health
alleges the petition was filed beyond the one-year statute of
limitations imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"):
(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 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) The time during which a properly filed application for
State postconviction or other collateral review with respect
to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be
counted toward any period of limitation under this
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
record shows that on February 26, 2010, Petitioner entered a
pleas of no contest in Pittsburg County District Court Case
Nos. CF-2009-312, CF-2009-313, and CF-2009-349 (Dkt. 8-1). He
was sentenced to 20 years of ...
Buy This Entire Record For