The opinion of the court was delivered by: James K. Singleton, Jr. United States District Judge
Jesus R. Bruno, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Bruno is currently in the custody of the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. Respondent has answered. Bruno has not replied.
I. BACKGROUND/PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
Bruno was convicted by a jury in the Albany County Court of Criminal Sexual Assault in the First Degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 130.50(1)), Attempted Assault in the Second Degree (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 110, 120.05), and Resisting Arrest (N.Y. Penal Law § 205.30). In August 2006 the trial court sentenced Bruno as a persistent felony offender to an indeterminate sentence of twenty-five years to life on the sexual assault conviction, and to lesser determinate terms on the other two convictions, to be served concurrently. The Appellate Division, Third Appellate Department, affirmed Bruno's conviction and sentence in a reasoned, published decision, and the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal on March 26, 2008.*fn1
On March 5, 2009, appearing pro se, Bruno filed a motion to vacate the judgment under N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 in the Albany County Court, which the County Court denied on March 30, 2009. The Appellate Division denied leave to appeal on June 11, 2009. On July 2, 2009, Bruno, appearing pro se, filed a motion for a writ of error coram nobis, in the Appellate Division, which the Appellate Division denied in an unreported decision on August 28, 2009. The New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal on November 20, 2009.*fn2 Bruno filed his Petition for relief in this Court on March 2, 2010.
II. GROUNDS RAISED/DEFENSES
In his Petition Bruno raises six grounds: (1) the admission of unredacted medical records constituted inadmissible hearsay and bolstered the victim's testimony; (2) insufficiency of the evidence; (3) the trial court erred in denying a motion for a mistrial based upon misconduct by the prosecutor and the People's witnesses; (4) the trial court deprived Bruno of his right to a fair trial in several particulars; (5) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (6) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Respondent contends that the Petition is untimely. Respondent also contends that, except for Bruno's second (insufficiency of the evidence), fifth (ineffective assistance of trial counsel), and sixth (ineffective assistance of appellate counsel) grounds, Bruno has not exhausted his state-court remedies.
Respondent contends that the Petition is untimely and must be dismissed. Bruno has not replied to the answer. 28 U.S.C. § 2248 provides:
The allegations of a return to the writ of habeas corpus or of an answer to an order to show cause in a habeas corpus proceeding, if not traversed, shall be accepted as true except to the extent that the judge finds from the evidence that they are not true. Ordinarily, under § 2248, where there is no denial of the Respondent's allegations in the answer, or the denial is merely formal and unsupported by an evidentiary basis, the court must accept Respondent's allegations.*fn3 Where there is no traverse filed and no evidence offered to contradict the allegations of the return, they must be accepted as true.*fn4 Accepting Respondent's allegations as true, this Court limits its discussion to whether those allegations establish, as a matter of law, that the Petition was untimely.*fn5
The New York Court of Appeals denied Bruno's application for leave to appeal on March 26, 2008. Bruno's conviction became final on direct review 90 days later when his time to file a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court expired,*fn6 June 24, 2008.
28 U.S.C. § 2244 provides:
(d) (1) 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 ...