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.

Washington v. Metzger

United States District Court, D. Delaware

March 7, 2019

TYRONE WASHINGTON, Petitioner,
v.
DANA METZGER, Warden, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondent.

          Tyrone Washington. Pro se Petitioner.

          Kathryn Joy Garrison, Deputy Attorney General of the Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Respondents.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ANDREWS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Petitioner Tyrone Washington is an inmate in custody at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware. Petitioner filed an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Petition"). (D.I. 1) The State filed a Motion for Leave to File a Motion to Dismiss the Petition as Time-Barred (D.I. 12) simultaneously with the proposed Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 12-1). Petitioner filed a Reply in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. (D.I. 18) For the reasons discussed, the Court will grant the State's Motion for Leave to File a Motion to Dismiss and its Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 12; D.I. 12-1), and deny the Petition as barred by the limitations period prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 2244.

         I. BACKGROUND

         In 2000, a Delaware Superior Court jury convicted Petitioner of six counts each of trafficking in cocaine and delivery of cocaine; multiple counts of maintaining a vehicle and a dwelling for keeping controlled substances; and other drug related charges. (D.I. 12-1 at 2); see also Washington v. State, 788 A.2d 132 (Table), 2001 WL 1586865, at *1 (Del. Dec. 6, 2001). The Superior Court sentenced him on November 11, 2000 to a total of eighty-eight years at Level V, to be suspended after sixty-five mandatory years and successful completion of the Key drug treatment program, followed by probation. (D.I. 12-1 at 2) Petitioner appealed, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's convictions and sentences on December 6, 2001. See Washington, 2001 WL 1586865, at *2.

         On January 17, 2014, Petitioner filed in the Superior Court a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 ("Rule 61 motion"). (D.I. 16-11 at 9, Entry No. 104) The Superior Court denied the Rule 61 motion on September 21, 2016, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that decision on May 2, 2016. See State v. Washington, 2016 WL 5239644, at 14 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 21, 2016); Washington v. State, 169 A.3d 353 (Table), 2017 WL 3096227, at *1 (Del. July 20, 2017).

         Petitioner filed the instant Petition in September 2017, asserting, inter alia, violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), prosecutorial misconduct, and several instances of ineffective assistance of counsel.

         II. ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

         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 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 ...

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.