United States District Court, D. Nebraska
RANDY S. PETERSON, Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD G. KOPF, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the court on Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 10). Respondent argues Petitioner Randy Peterson's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 1) must be dismissed because it is barred by the limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). For the reasons discussed below, the court agrees that Peterson's habeas corpus petition is barred by the statute of limitations.
On July 6, 2011, a jury in the Madison County District Court ("state district court") found Peterson guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon or prohibited person. Thereafter, the state district court sentenced Peterson to an indeterminate term of not less than three nor more than five years' imprisonment. (Filing No. 9-2 at CM/ECF pp. 85-87.) No direct appeal followed.
B. Postconviction Motion and Appeal
On December 30, 2011, Peterson filed a motion for postconviction relief in the state district court. ( Id. at CM/ECF p. 97.) The state district court denied postconviction relief on August 28, 2012. ( Id. at CM/ECF p. 120.) Peterson appealed.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the state district court's judgment on February 8, 2013. The Nebraska Supreme Court denied Peterson's petition for further review on April 10, 2013, and issued a mandate on April 24, 2013. (Filing No. 9-1 at CM/ECF p. 2.)
Peterson filed his habeas corpus petition in this court on June 6, 2014. (Filing No. 1.) Thereafter, Respondent moved for summary judgment (Filing No. 10), arguing the petition is barred by the relevant statute of limitations. Peterson filed two briefs (Filing Nos. 13 and 16) in opposition to Respondent's motion.
A. Date on Which Judgment Became Final
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 110 Stat. 1214, establishes a one-year limitations period for state prisoners to file for federal habeas relief that runs from the latest of four specified dates. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). This case concerns only the first date listed in § 2244(d)(1): "the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).
Here, it is undisputed that Peterson's judgment became final on September 22, 2011, the date on which Peterson's time for pursuing direct review of the state district court's judgment and sentence expired. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S.Ct. 641, 653-54 (2012) (holding that, for petitioners who do not pursue direct review all the way to the United States Supreme Court, a judgment becomes ...