United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
Roderick C. Young United States Magistrate Judge
Terrence Anthony Cheeseman, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (hereinafter, "§ 2254 Petition, " ECF No. 1) challenging his convictions in the Circuit Court of the City of Newport News ("Circuit Court"). Respondent moves to dismiss on the ground that, inter alia, the one-year statute of limitations governing federal habeas petitions bars the § 2254 Petition. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) will be GRANTED.
I. PERTINENT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Cheeseman pled guilty in the Circuit Court to abduction, two counts of robbery, use a firearm during the commission of a felony, and wearing a mask in public and was sentenced to an active sentence of twelve years. See Cheeseman v. Commonwealth, No. 1986-12-1, at 1 (Va. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2014). Cheeseman appealed. On January 31, 2014, the Court of Appeals of Virginia dismissed Cheeseman's appeal and allowed counsel to withdraw. Id. at 2.
Prior to the conclusion of his direct appeal, Cheeseman filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court of Virginia. On August 2, 2013, the Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed the petition because it found Cheeseman could have pursued his claim for habeas relief at trial and on direct appeal. See Cheeseman v. Dir. of the Dep't Corr. No. 130857, at 1 (Va. Aug. 2, 2013) (citing Slayton v. Parrigan, 205 S.E.2d 680 (Va. 1974)).
On August 29, 2013, Cheeseman filed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus, this time with the Circuit Court. Cheeseman v. Dir., Va. Dep't of Corr., No. CR13H02119-00, at 2 (Va. Cir. Ct. Nov. 20, 2013). The Circuit Court denied the petition as an improper successive petition. Id. (citing Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(B)(2)).
On August 21, 2015, Cheeseman filed his § 2254 Petition with this Court. (§ 2254 Pet. 15). In his § 2254 Petition, Cheeseman asserts the following claims for relief:
Claim One "Fifth Amendment violation in that Petitioner's statement to detectives on August 23, 2011 was coerced." (§ 2254 Pet. 6.)
Claim Two Cheeseman failed to receive the effective assistance of counsel because counsel retained Cheeseman's file while counsel pursued Cheeseman's appeal which hampered Cheeseman's ability to file his state petitions for writs of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1-1, at 22 (as paginated by CM/ECF).)
Claim Three "Fifth Amendment violation in that Petitioner's Miranda rights were not proper as required under Miranda." (§ 2254 Pet. 9 (emphasis added).)
A. Statute of Limitations
Respondent contends that the federal statute of limitations bars Cheeseman's claims. Section 101 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") amended 28 U.S.C. § 2244 to establish a one-year period of limitation for the filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court. Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) now reads:
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 ...