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.

Compton v. Hargrave

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division

August 29, 2014

WILL COMPTON, Petitioner,
v.
WENDALL HARGRAVE, Respondent.

ORDER

FRANK D. WHITNEY, Chief District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on consideration of Petitioner's habeas petition which he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina who is serving a life sentence following his conviction on multiple counts of first-degree sexual offense on October 12, 1994, in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Petitioner is presently housed at the Alexander Correctional Institution within this district.

In his habeas petition, Petitioner states that on December 30, 2011, he pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to the disciplinary charge of willfully tampering, blocking or damaging a locking device. Judgment was entered that same day, and as is relevant here, Petitioner was sentenced to 30-days of credit time lost. (5:14-cv-105, Doc. No. 1 at 1). However, Petitioner contends that he agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence but that agreement was allegedly breached. Petitioner appealed his sentence to the Chief Disciplinary Officer, Hattie Pimpong, and he avers that his sentence was upheld on appeal on May 30, 2012. (Id. at 2).

Petitioner then contacted North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services and was informed on November 18, 2013, that "[t]here is no general state court review of prison disciplinary procedures." (Id. at 3). Petitioner's § 2254 habeas petition was filed at the earliest on June 9, 2014, which is the date that he avers that he placed the prison in the prison mailing system.

II. DISCUSSION

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) provides, in relevant part, that,

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall 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 ...

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.