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.

Valentine v. Pierce

United States District Court, D. Delaware

March 20, 2014

ANTHONY VALENTINE, Petitioner,
v.
DAVID PIERCE, Warden, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondents.[1]

Anthony Valentine. Pro se Petitioner.

James T. Wakley, Deputy Attorney General of the Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LEONARD P. STARK, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court is an Application For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Petition") filed by Petitioner Anthony Valentine ("Petitioner"). (D.I. 3; D.I. 10) For the reasons discussed, the Court will dismiss the Petition as time-barred by the limitations period prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 2244.

II. BACKGROUND

On December 8, 2008, a Delaware Superior Court jury convicted Petitioner oftwo counts of first degree robbery, two counts of possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited, second degree assault, and second degree conspiracy. See Valentine v. State, 977 A.2d 899 (Table), 2009 WL 2415853 (Del. Aug. 7, 2009). A bench trial commenced immediately after these convictions, during which Petitioner was also convicted of possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited. (D.I. 18 at 1) On February 6, 2009, the Superior Court sentenced Petitioner to an aggregate of twenty-five years at Level V imprisonment, suspended after twelve years for decreasing levels of probationary supervision. See Valentine, 2009 WL 2415853, at *1. On August 7, 2009, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's convictions on direct appeal. Id

Petitioner filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 ("Rule 61 motion") on August 3, 2010, which the Superior Court denied on January 31, 2011. See State v. Valentine, 2011 WL 378690, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 31, 2011). Petitioner did not appeal that decision.

Acting pro se, Petitioner filed the instant§ 2254 Petition in October, 2011, and filed an amendment to the Petition in January, 2012. (D.I.3; D.I. 10) The State filed an Answer, asserting that the Petition should be dismissed as time-barred or, alternatively, as procedurally barred from federal habeas review. (D.I. 18)

After the State filed its Answer, Petitioner filed a Motion to Stay the Proceeding, which the Court denied. (D.I. 21; D.I. 26) Petitioner then filed a combined Motion to Stay the Proceedings and to Appoint Counsel. (D.I. 30)

III. THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") was signed into law by the President on April 23, 1996. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). AEDPA prescribes a one-year period of limitations for the filing of habeas petitions by state prisoners, which begins to 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 ...

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.