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.

Jones v. Ball

United States District Court, Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division

January 20, 2015

DAVID MATTHEW JONES, Petitioner,
v.
MIKE BALL, Respondent.

ORDER

Frank D. Whitney Chief United States District Judge

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon initial review of David Matthew Jones’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed January 13, 2015, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court is guided by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which directs habeas courts to examine habeas petitions promptly. Rule 4, 28 U.S.C.A. foll. § 2254. When it plainly appears from any such petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the reviewing court must dismiss the motion. Id.

II. BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted by a Buncombe County, North Carolina jury of first-degree statutory rape and taking indecent liberties with a child. Judgment was entered on October 14, 2004, and Petitioner was sentenced to an active prison term of 288 to 355 months. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence in an unpublished opinion filed on May 16, 2006. State v. Jones, 629 S.E.2d 620 ( N.C. App. 2006) (Table). Petitioner did not seek review by the North Carolina Supreme Court or file a motion for appropriate relief (MAR) with the state superior court in Buncombe County. Pet. 3, 6, 8, ECF No. 1.

III. DISCUSSION

A. EXHAUSTION

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a petitioner must exhaust his available state remedies before he may pursue habeas relief in federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). To meet the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must provide the state courts a full and fair opportunity to resolve federal constitutional claims before those claims are presented through a habeas petition in federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999).

Petitioner concedes that neither of the claims raised in his § 2254 habeas petition has been presented to the state courts. Pet. 3, 6, 8, ECF No. 1. He, therefore, has failed to fully exhaust his state remedies.

B. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Additionally, the instant § 2254 habeas petition is untimely. Under AEDPA, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court must be filed within one year of 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 ...

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.