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.

Crenshaw v. Gross

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

May 22, 2018

TORNITA N. CRENSHAW, Petitioner,
v.
GLORIA GROSS, Warden Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ALETA A. TRAUGER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This is a habeas corpus action brought by Tornita Crenshaw, a state prisoner, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Before the court is the respondent's Motion to Dismiss Untimely Habeas Petition. (Doc. No. 15.) For the following reasons, the respondent's motion will be granted and this action will be dismissed.

         I. Background

         On August 15, 2008, a Davidson County jury convicted the petitioner of robbery, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, especially aggravated kidnapping, and coercion of a witness. (Doc. No. 13-1 at 40); State of Tennessee v. Sandifer, et al., No. M2008-02849-CCA- R3-CD, 2010 WL 5343202, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 21, 2010). The court sentenced the petitioner to an effective sentence of twenty-three years' imprisonment. (Doc. No. 13-1 at 101- 02); Sandifer, 2010 WL 5343202, at *1. On December 21, 2010, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the petitioner's conviction and sentence. (Doc. No. 13-25); Sandifer, 2010 WL 5343202, at *25. The petitioner did not request permission to appeal from the Tennessee Supreme Court. (Cf. Doc. No. 13-27, Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court Denying Two Co-Defendants' Applications for Permission to Appeal.)

         On December 21, 2011, the petitioner filed a state post-conviction petition in the Davidson County Criminal Court. (Doc. No. 13-29.) The court appointed counsel (Doc. No. 13-30), and the petitioner filed an amended petition on June 1, 2012. (Doc. No. 13-34.) On July 19, 2012, the petitioner withdrew her post-conviction petition. (Doc. No. 13-35 at 5.)

         On April 11, 2016, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the Davidson County Criminal Court. (Doc. No. 13-36 at 58-64); Crenshaw v. State of Tennessee, No. M2016-01045-CCA-R3-ECN, 2017 WL 564898, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 13, 2017). On April 25, 2016, the court dismissed the petitioner's coram nobis petition as barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations. (Doc. No. 13-36 at 78-80); Crenshaw, 2017 WL 564898, at *2. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner's coram nobis petition. (Doc. No. 13-39); Crenshaw, 2017 WL 564898, at *4. On May 18, 2017, the Tennessee Supreme Court denied the petitioner's application for permission to appeal. (Doc. No. 13-43); Crenshaw, 2017 WL 564898, perm. app. denied May 18, 2017.

         On August 14, 2017, the court received the petitioner's pro se habeas corpus petition. (Doc. No. 1.) The petitioner declared under penalty of perjury, however, that she placed the petition in the prison mailing system on August 10, 2017. (Id. at 10.) A habeas corpus petition is deemed filed on the date it is submitted to prison officials for mailing to the court. Miller v. Collins, 305 F.3d 491, 498-99 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988)). The court therefore considers the date of filing to be August 10, 2017.

         II. Timeliness of the Petition

         There is a one-year statute of limitations for the filing of habeas corpus petitions. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). This one-year period 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 exercise of due diligence.

Id. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D). The running of the one-year period is tolled while “a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim ...


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.