United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
V. HAG AN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is respondent's motion to dismiss
petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus as time
barred by the statute of limitations pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d) (Dkt. # 16). Petitioner, a state prisoner
appearing pro se, filed a response (Dkt. # 18) to the motion
to dismiss, and respondent filed a reply (Dkt. # 19). For the
reasons discussed below, the Court finds the petition is
untimely, and respondent's motion to dismiss shall be
filed this habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 on October 17, 2016, in the Western District of
Oklahoma (Dkt. # 1), which transferred the case to this Court
on January 19, 2017 (Dkt. # 11). Petitioner challenges two
convictions and sentences entered in Rogers County District
Court: (1) Case No. CF-2013-362 for Embezzlement, After
Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, and (2) Case No.
CF-2014-555 for Obtaining Money by False Pretenses, After
Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies (Dkt. # 1 at 1).
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(“AEDPA”), enacted April 24, 1996, established a
one-year limitation period for habeas corpus petitions as
(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 post-conviction 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 reflects that on November 6, 2014, after accepting
guilty pleas in both cases, the state district judge
sentenced petitioner on ...