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.

Espinosa Dorantes v. Genovese

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

December 3, 2019

GENARO EDGAR ESPINOSA DORANTES # 420728, Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN GENOVESE, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ELI RICHARDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Respondent moves to dismiss this habeas corpus action as untimely. (Doc. No. 11.) Petitioner has responded in opposition to the motion (Doc. No. 13), and Respondent has replied. (Doc. No. 15.) The Court has reviewed the parties' filings and agrees with Respondent that Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations and that his petition is therefore untimely.

         I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Petitioner was convicted by a Davidson County jury of felony murder and aggravated child abuse on April 12, 2007. (Doc. No. 10-1 at 131, 136.) The trial court sentenced him to life and 22 years in prison, respectively, and ordered the sentences to run consecutively. (Id.) The trial court denied Petitioner's motion for new trial on July 20, 2007.

         On November 30, 2009, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals vacated Petitioner's conviction for aggravated child abuse but affirmed the felony murder conviction and modified his sentence to life in prison. (Doc. No. 10-10.) In an opinion entered January 25, 2011, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed that judgment in part, affirmed the conviction and life sentence for felony murder, and reinstated the conviction and sentence for aggravated child abuse. (Doc. No. 10-20.)

         Petitioner did not file any further challenges to his convictions or sentences until he placed the pending habeas petition in the prison mail system on June 17, 2019.[1] (Doc. No. 1 at 20.) On July 9, 2019, the Court ordered Respondent to file an answer or motion in response to the petition (Doc. No. 4), and on August 30, 2019, Respondent filed the pending motion to dismiss along with a memorandum in support and the relevant portions of the state-court record. (Doc. No. 10-12.) Petitioner responded to the motion to dismiss on September 17, 2019, (Doc. No. 13), and Respondent filed a reply on October 3, 2019, at the Court's direction. (Doc. Nos. 14-15.)

         II. ANALYSIS

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) imposes a one-year limitations period for habeas petitions brought by prisoners challenging state-court convictions. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Under this provision, the limitations period runs from the latest of four enumerated events:

(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.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Petitioner does not allege any circumstances triggering subsections (B)- (D). Accordingly, his limitations period began to run on Monday, April 25, 2011, 90 days after the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled on his direct appeal, when the time within which he could have sought review by the United States Supreme Court expired. See Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113, 119-120 (2009) (holding that state convictions are final under § 2244(d)(1)(A) when Supreme Court certiorari is exhausted or when the time for filing a certiorari petition expires); S.Ct. R. 13.3 (providing 90 days from date of entry of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed).

         Although the running of the period is tolled under § 2244(d)(2) while any “properly filed” collateral review petition is pending in state court, Petitioner never filed such a petition in state court. His one-year limitations period, therefore, ran without interruption until it expired on Wednesday, April 25, 2012. His federal habeas petition filed on June 17, 2019, is ...


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.