United States District Court, D. Delaware
TYRONE A. MILES, Petitioner,
DAVID PIERCE, Warden, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondents.
Herbert Weiswasser Mondros, Esquire. Attorney for Petitioner.
V. Sullivan, Deputy Attorney General of the Delaware
Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for
U.S. District Judge.
before the Court is an Application For A Writ Of Habeas
Corpus Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2254
("Petition") filed by Petitioner Tyrone A. Miles
("Petitioner"). (D.I. 1) The State has filed an
Answer in Opposition. (D.I. 11) For the reasons discussed,
the Court will dismiss the Petition as time-barred by the
limitations period prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 2244.
November 2007, Petitioner was indicted on charges of
attempted first degree murder, first degree robbery, two
counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a
felony ("PFDCF"), and possession of a firearm by a
person prohibited ("PFBPP"). See Miles v.
State, .985 A.2d 390 (Table), 2009 WL 4114385 (Del. Nov.
23, 2009). These charges stemmed from Petitioner's
robbery and shooting of a convenience store clerk in Dover,
Delaware. Id. at *1. Petitioner entered a guilty
plea to the charges on July 22, 2008, which he withdrew on
September 22, 2008. (D.L 11 at 3) In December 2008,
Petitioner filed a motion to suppress his police statement.
The Delaware Superior Court denied the suppression motion
after a hearing, and granted severance of the PFBPP charge in
February 2009. Id.
February 12, 2009, a Delaware Superior Court jury convicted
Petitioner of attempted first degree murder and PFDCF; the
jury found him not guilty of first degree robbery and the
associated PFDCF. (D.I. 11 at 3) On April 16, 2009, the
Superior Court sentenced Petitioner to life in prison plus
five years at Level V. Id. Petitioner appealed, and
the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed his convictions on
November 23, 2009. See Miles, 2009 WL 4114385, at
November 5, 2010, Petitioner filed his first motion for
post-conviction relief pursuant to Delaware Superior Court
Criminal Rule 61 ("Rule 61 motion"). (D.L 13 at
464) The Superior 2 Court denied the Rule 61 motion as
procedurally barred and meridess on November 10, 2011.
See State v. Miles, 2011 WL 7144238 (Del.
Super. Ct. Nov. 10, 2011). The Delaware Supreme Court
affirmed that decision on February 22, 2012. See Miles v.
State, 38 A.3d 1255 (Table), 2012 WL 589281 (Del. Feb.
filed his second Rule 61 motion on April 5, 2012 (D.I. 13 at
466), which the Superior Court denied as time-barred under
Rule 61(i)(1) on December 12, 2012 (D.I. 13 at 491-504).
Petitioner appealed, and the Delaware Supreme Court dismissed
the appeal as untimely on January 28, 2013. See Miles v.
State, 61 A.3d 1618 (Table), 2013 WL 324114 (Del. Jan.
by counsel, Petitioner filed the instant § 2254 Petition
in January 2014. (D.I. 1) The Petition asserts three grounds
for relief: (1) defense counsel provided ineffective
assistance by stipulating to the admission of a fingerprint
report and allowing a second fingerprint examiner to verify
the report; (2) Petitioner's Fifth Amendment rights were
violated when he was not provided Miranda warnings
prior to the second statement Petitioner made to police
Detective Richardson; and (3) Petitioner's Fifth
Amendment rights were violated when the videotaped police
statement was played for the jury. (D.I. 1 at 5-6) The State
filed an Answer, asserting that the Petition should be
dismissed as time-barred or, alternatively, because the
claims asserted therein are procedurally barred or meridess.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
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
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time ...