Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

CHAD W. LAUGHLIN, Case No. 4:11-cv-00403-EJL Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

STEVEN LITTLE, Respondent.

Pending before the Court is a Motion for Summary Dismissal filed by Respondent on March 20, 2012. (Dkt. 13.) Petitioner has filed his Response (Dkt. 18), and the Motion is now ripe for adjudication. Having fully reviewed the record, including the state court record, the Court finds that the parties have adequately presented the facts and legal arguments in the briefs and record and that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Therefore, in the interest of avoiding delay, the Court shall decide this matter on the written motions, briefs and record without oral argument. D. Idaho L. Civ. R. 7.1(d). Accordingly, the Court enters the following Order.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

REVIEW OF MOTION TO DISMISS 1. Background Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance and, in a separate pending criminal case, one count of grand theft by disposing of stolen property, in the Fifth Judicial District Court in Twin Falls County, Idaho. (State's Lodgings A-2, B-2.) His judgment of conviction was entered on June 26, 2006. (State's Lodgings A-3, B-3.) On July 27, 2006, Petitioner was sentenced in the controlled substance case to seven years fixed, but his sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation for seven years. (State's Lodging A-3.) On the same date, Petitioner was sentenced to a term of 14 years, with the first seven years fixed, to be served concurrently with his controlled substance sentence; again, the sentence was suspended, and he was placed on seven years of probation. (State's Lodging B-3.) Petitioner did not file a direct appeal in either case. (State's Lodgings A-9, B-9.) Two years later, Petitioner violated the terms of his probation. As a result, his probation was revoked, and new sentences were entered on February 11, 2008, requiring him to serve concurrent sentences of five years fixed on each conviction, with two years indeterminate on the possession conviction and nine years indeterminate on the grand

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

theft conviction. (State's Lodgings A-6, B-6.) Petitioner did not appeal. (State's Lodging A-9, B-9.) On June 10, 2008, Petitioner filed Rule 35 motions for reconsideration, seeking leniency in sentencing in both cases. (State's Lodgings A-7, B-7.) Both motions were denied as untimely on August 26, 2008, and Petitioner did not appeal the decisions denying relief. (State's Lodgings A-8, B-8, A-9, B-9.) On February 4, 2009, Petitioner filed petitions for post-conviction relief in both actions, raising ineffective assistance of counsel claims regarding counsel's performance in the revocation of probation proceedings and counsel's advice given on the time frame for the filing of the motions to reconsider. (State's Lodgings C-1, E-1.) The state district court held an evidentiary hearing on the matter and denied post-conviction relief on September 28, 2009. (State's Lodgings C-4, E-4.) Petitioner filed pro se notices of appeal challenging denial of post-conviction relief in both cases. (State's Lodgings C-5, E-5.) Petitioner's notices of appeal were eventually dismissed on January 6, 2010, because the state district court found that Petitioner could afford to pay associated fees, but failed to pay them. (State's Lodgings D-1, F-1, D-2, F-2, C-7, E-7, D-3, F-3.) The remittiturs in both cases were issued on January 29, 2010. (State's Lodgings D-4, F-4.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

Petitioner next filed a successive post-conviction petition on April 15, 2010. That petition was dismissed on May 24, 2010. (State's Lodgings G-1 to G-5.) Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, which was deemed untimely;1 as a result, the appeal was dismissed by the Idaho Supreme Court on August 27, 2010, with the remittitur issued on September 21, 2010. This concluded Petitioner's state court actions. (State's Lodgings G-6, H-1 to H-4.) In this action, Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging the 2006 conviction was constructively filed on August 15, 2011 (mailbox rule). (Dkt. 3.) Petitioner later filed an Amended Petition, on which he is currently proceeding. (Dkt. 7.) Respondent now argues that the original Petition was untimely and this entire action should be dismissed with prejudice. (Dkt. 13.) 2. Statute of Limitations A. Standard of Law

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this case is governed by the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), enacted in 1996. Under AEDPA, petitioners have a one-year statute of limitations period within which to file a federal habeas corpus petition. The one-year period usually begins to run from the date the state court judgment "became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review." 28 U.S.C.

Download 20.pdf

Idaho Law