United States District Court, D. Kansas
NOTICE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
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 submitted the
filing fee. The Court has reviewed the petition under Rule 4
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts.
March 2010, petitioner was convicted in the District Court of
Sedgwick County, Kansas, on his guilty plea to four counts of
aggravated indecent liberties with a child. Following his
sentencing in June 2010, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal,
and then a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The Notice of
Appeal was dismissed, and after the motion was denied by the
trial court in February 2012, petitioner filed a second
Notice of Appeal. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the
denial of the motion to withdraw on October 25, 2013, and the
Kansas Supreme Court denied review on August 14, 2014.
State v. Reynolds, 311 P.3d 1167 (Table), 2013 WL
5870037 (Kan. App. Oct. 25, 2013).
December 9, 2015, petitioner filed a motion to set aside the
conviction. The motion was denied in February 2016, and
petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal. The Kansas Court of
Appeals affirmed the denial of relief. State v.
Reynolds, 404 P.3d 355 (Table), 2017 WL 4453229 (Kan.
App. Oct. 6, 2017). Petitioner did not seek review by the
Kansas Supreme Court.
filed this petition on April 12, 2018.
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