United States District Court, D. Kansas
ANDRE D. BAILEY, Petitioner,
JOEL HRABE, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CROW, U.S. Senior District Judge.
matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. Petitioner proceeds pro se, and the Court grants
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court has conducted
an initial review of the petition under Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts and enters the following order.
was convicted in the District Court of Sedgwick County of one
count of felony-murder, two counts of aggravated robbery, one
count of criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied
building, one count of possession of marijuana with intent to
sell, and one count of no tax stamp. State v.
Bailey, 255 P.3d 19 (Kan. 2011).
October 11, 2012, petitioner filed a state-postconviction
motion under K.S.A. 60-1507. The state district court denied
relief, but the Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the
convictions of possession of marijuana with intent to sell
and no tax stamp. Bailey v. State, 392 P.3d 566
(Table), 2017 WL 1197240 (Kan.App. Mar. 31, 2017), rev.
denied Oct. 27, 2017.
filed his federal application for habeas corpus on March 23,
petition is subject to the one-year limitation period
established by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act (“AEDPA”) in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
Section 2244(d)(1) provides:
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 for
seeking such review;
(B) The date on which the impediment to filing an application
created by State action in violation of the Constitution or
laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was
prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) The date on which the constitutional right asserted was
initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has
been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) The date on which the factual predicate of the claim or
claims presented could have been discovered through the