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.

Haynes v. Hansen

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

June 24, 2019

DAMMON T. HAYNES, Petitioner,
v.
BRAD HANSEN, Warden, and STATE OF NEBRASKA, Respondents.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Richard G. Kopf, Senior United States District Judge

         Pending before me is a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents have filed a motion for summary judgment predicated on the assertion that the federal statute of limitations ran out before Petitioner filed his petition.

         I agree with Respondents and further find no basis to excuse application of the statute of limitations based on equitable tolling.[1] Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is granted and the petition is dismissed with prejudice. Briefly, my reasons for doing so are set forth below.

         Facts

         1. On September 17, 2014, Petitioner Dammon T. Haynes pled no contest in the District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska, to three convictions in two separate cases: (a) stalking and (b) terroristic threats in No. CR14-701, and (c) tampering with a juror, witness, or informant in No. CR14-1202. (Filing No. 10-3 at CM/ECF pp. 1-2)[2] At the plea hearing, the district court found the stalking conviction to be a second offense. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 1.)

         2. On November 19, 2014, the state district court found Haynes to be a habitual criminal and sentenced him to 12 to 24 years on each conviction. (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 3-6.) The court ordered the sentences for stalking and terroristic threats to run concurrently with one another and the tampering sentence to run consecutively to those other sentences. (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 3, 5.)

         3. Haynes filed a consolidated direct appeal, alleging excessive sentences. State v. Haynes, 2015 WL 4626756 (Neb.App. 2015). The Nebraska Court of Appeals, in an opinion dated August 4, 2015, affirmed Haynes' sentences for the tampering and terroristic threats convictions. Id. The court, however, vacated the stalking sentence and remanded for resentencing on that conviction only for the reason that the sentence should not have been enhanced under the habitual criminal statute because it was enhanced as a second offense under the stalking statutes. Id. No petition for further review was filed with the Nebraska Supreme Court. (Filing No. 10-1 at CM/ECF pp. 4, 8.) Haynes was resentenced to 20 months to 5 years on the stalking conviction; he did not appeal from the resentencing order, which was filed on October 2, 2015. See Douglas County District Court No. CR14-701.

         4. On July 14, 2016, Haynes filed a timely motion for post-conviction relief in No. CR14-701. (Filing No. 10-4 at CM/ECF p. 1.) The state district court denied post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 21-26.) As the district court noted in its order, Haynes only filed a post-conviction motion in CR14-701, the case involving the stalking and terroristic threats convictions; no postconviction motion was filed in the tampering case. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 21.) See, also, Douglas County District Court No. CR14-1202.

         5. Haynes appealed the denial of post-conviction relief, and on March 9, 2018, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the state district court's judgment. State v. Haynes, 908 N.W.2d 40 (Neb. 2018). Haynes filed a motion for rehearing, which was overruled as untimely filed. (Filing No. 10-2 at CM/ECF p. 4.) The mandate was issued on April 16, 2018. (Id.)

         6. Haynes' habeas petition, in which he references all three convictions, was filed with this Court on February 25, 2019. (Filing No. 1.)

         The Statute of Limitations Ran Out

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) provides a statute of limitations for a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Section 2244(d) provides:

(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 ...

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.