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.

Trotter v. Clarke

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

November 20, 2019

LAVAYE D. TROTTER, Petitioner,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Roderick C. Young United States Magistrate Judge.

         Lavaye D. Trotter, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition," ECF No. 1) challenging his convictions in the Circuit Court of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia ("Circuit Court"). Respondent moves to dismiss, inter alia, on the ground that 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. 11) will be GRANTED.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Trotter was convicted in the Circuit Court of burglary, robbery, malicious wounding, and three counts of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. (See ECF No. 13-2, at 1.) Trotter appealed his convictions. (Id.) On January 20, 2016, the Court of Appeals of Virginia denied Trotter's petition for appeal. (Id.) Trotter pursued a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia. (ECF No. 13-3, at 1.) On November 8, 2016, the Supreme Court of Virginia refused Trotter's petition for appeal. (Id.) Trotter did not file any request for collateral review in the Virginia courts. (ECF No. 13 ¶ 3 n.6.)

         On March 13, 2019, Trotter filed the instant §2254 Petition.[1] In his § 2254 Petition, Trotter raises the following claims for relief:

Claim One: The evidence was insufficient to prove Trotter's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (ECF No. 1, at 5.)
Claim Two: Trotter failed to receive the effective assistance of counsel because counsel:
(a) failed to object to statements from the victim and other witnesses (ECF No. 1-1, at 4-5); and,
(b) failed to investigate and subpoena witnesses (id. at 5).

         II. ANALYSIS

         A. Statute of Limitations

         Respondent contends that the federal statute of limitations bars Trotter'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 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.