United States District Court, D. Kansas
DUANE E. WAHL, Petitioner,
DAN SCHNURR, Respondent.
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.
Â§ 2254. The Court has conducted an initial review of the
petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus
Cases Under Section 2254 and enters the following order.
was convicted, on his guilty plea, of one count of
first-degree murder. As part of the plea, he admitted the
factual basis of the charge, agreed to a hard 25 year life
sentence, waived his right to a direct appeal, and agreed to
waive collateral attack remedies except in limited
circumstances. Petitioner entered the plea on December 9,
2010, and did not appeal. Wahl v. State, 344 P.3d
385 (Kan. 2015).
about December 20, 2011, petitioner mailed a motion under
K.S.A. 60-1507 to the state district court. That action
initially was dismissed, but on remand, the state district
court conducted a hearing and ruled that petitioner had not shown
ineffective assistance of counsel. The Kansas Court of
Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion. Wahl v.
State, 400 P.3d 679 (Table), 2017 WL 3668917 (Kan. App.
Aug. 25, 2017), rev. denied, Feb. 26, 2018.
submitted his federal petition on May 2, 2019.
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