United States District Court, D. Kansas
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. Petitioner moves to amend
the petition to add two affidavits (Doc. 2). The Court grants
the motion and has reviewed the affidavits in conducting an
initial review of the petition required by Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases under Section 2254.
October 2003, petitioner pled guilty to one count of
second-degree murder in the District Court of Sedgwick
County. Prior to entering the plea, petitioner indicated he
had reviewed the plea agreement with counsel and understood
it, that he understood the waiver of rights that would occur
upon the entry of the plea, that he understood the sentence
to be recommended by both parties, that he understood the
court was not bound by that recommendation, that he
understood the sentence imposed could fall between 147 and
653 months with a fine of up to $500, 000.00, and that he had
not been induced to enter the plea by threats or promises. He
provided a factual basis for the plea. State v.
Woods, 130 P.3d 1247 (Table), 2006 WL 851245, at *1
(Kan.Ct.App. Mar. 31, 2006), rev. denied, Sep. 19,
December 2003, he filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea
and discharge his attorneys. The district court conducted an
evidentiary hearing, denied his motion, and sentenced him to
a term of 258 months. Id.
September 2007, petitioner filed a pro se motion under K.S.A.
60-1507 seeking to withdraw his plea based on ineffective
assistance of counsel. The district court conducted a hearing
and denied the motion; the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed
that decision. Woods v. State, 291 P.3d 105 (Table),
2012 WL 6734507 (Kan.Ct.App. Dec. 21, 2012), rev.
denied, 297 Kan. 1257 (Aug. 23, 2013).
2014, petitioner filed a second motion under K.S.A. 60-1507,
again arguing ineffective assistance by his trial counsel.
The district court summarily denied the motion, and the
Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Woods v. State,
379 P.3d 1134 (Kan.Ct.App. 2016), rev. denied, Sep.
filed this action on September 20, 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