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.

Woods v. Hrabe

United States District Court, D. Kansas

August 2, 2019

CLINT EUGENE WOODS, Petitioner,
v.
JOEL HRABE, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          SAM A. CROW U.S. SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This 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.

         Background

         In 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, 2006.

         In 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.

         In 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).

         In May 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. 28, 2017.

         Petitioner filed this action on September 20, 2018.

         Analysis

         This 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 ...

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.