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.

Miles v. Pierce

United States District Court, D. Delaware

March 31, 2017

TYRONE A. MILES, Petitioner,
v.
DAVID PIERCE, Warden, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondents.

          Herbert Weiswasser Mondros, Esquire. Attorney for Petitioner.

          Karen V. Sullivan, Deputy Attorney General of the Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Respondents.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          STARK, U.S. 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 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.

         II. BACKGROUND

         In 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.

         On 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 *3.

         On 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. 22, 2012).

         Petitioner 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. 28, 2013).

         Represented 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. (D.I. 11).

         III. 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 ...

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.