United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
L. PATRICK AULD, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of North Carolina, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket Entries 1, 2.) On November 16, 2006, Petitioner pled guilty in the Superior Court of Guilford County to first degree murder in case 06 CRS 70305. (Docket Entry 1, ¶¶ 1, 2, 4-6; see also Docket Entry 1-2 at 11-12.) The trial court sentenced Petitioner to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. (Docket Entry 1, ¶ 3; see also Docket Entry 1-3 at 30-31.) Petitioner did not pursue a direct appeal. (See Docket Entry 1, ¶ 8.)
Petitioner did file a pro se "Motion for Discovery" (Docket Entry 1-2 at 14-15) and "Motion for Preparation of a Stenographic Transcript" (id. at 16-18) with the trial court, both of which he dated as signed on December 29, 2008 (id. at 15, 18), and which that court stamped as filed on January 6, 2009 (id. at 14, 16). The trial court denied both motions in a single order dated January 16, 2009 (id. at 20), and filed on January 20, 2009 (id. at 19).
Petitioner thereafter filed a pro se motion for appropriate relief ("MAR") with the trial court (Docket Entries 1-1, 1-2 & 1-3; see also Docket Entry 1, ¶ 11(a)),  which that court accepted as filed on February 29, 2012 (Docket Entry 1-3 at 54 (indicating date filed); see also Docket Entry 1, ¶ 11(a)(3)). The trial court denied the MAR by order dated and filed August 27, 2012 (Docket Entry 1-3 at 54; see also Docket Entry 1, ¶ 11(a)(7), (8)). Petitioner sought review of that denial by filing a certiorari petition in the North Carolina Court of Appeals (Docket Entry 2 at 1-13; see also Docket Entry 1, ¶ 11(b)), which he signed as submitted on January 1, 2013 (Docket Entry 2 at 11),  and which that court accepted as filed on January 10, 2013 (id. at 17 (indicating date filed)). The Court of Appeals denied that petition on January 28, 2013. (Docket Entry 2 at 17; see also Docket Entry 1, ¶ 11(b)(7), (8).)
Petitioner thereafter submitted his instant Petition to this Court (Docket Entries 1, 2), which he dated as mailed on February 6, 2013 (Docket Entry 1 at 14), and which the Court stamped as filed on February 11, 2013 (id. at 1). Respondent then moved to dismiss the Petition on statute of limitation grounds. (Docket Entry 5.) Petitioner responded in opposition. (Docket Entry 8.) For the reasons that follow, the Court should grant Respondent's instant Motion.
Petitioner raises three claims for relief in his Petition. First, he alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in that his trial counsel "did not do his job[, ]... gave up on the [d]efense and told [Petitioner] that his case was [d]ead [o]n [a]rrival, strongly influencing [Petitioner] to sign a plea." (Docket Entry 1 at 5.) Petitioner additionally asserts that "[a] second attorney, added later, did nothing to rectify this situation." (Id.) Second, Petitioner claims that while he remained in state custody, interrogators obtained a Miranda waiver that failed to meet the "knowing, voluntary and intelligent" test and an involuntary confession, in violation of his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. (Id. at 6-7.) Third, he asserts that the trial court erred by accepting a plea that failed to meet the "knowing and voluntary" test due to the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel and his impaired mental state caused by "excessive and inappropriate medication." (Id. at 8.)
In order to assess Respondent's statute of limitation argument, the Court first must determine when Petitioner's one-year period to file his § 2254 Petition commenced. In this regard, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has explained that:
Under § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D), the one-year limitation period begins to run from the latest of several potential starting dates:
(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 ...