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.

Gillard v. Sticht

United States District Court, N.D. New York

January 23, 2017

JERRY GILLARD, Petitioner,
v.
THOMAS J. STICHT, Superintendent Respondent.

         APPEARANCES:

          JERRY GILLARD, Wyoming Correctional Facility, Petitioner pro se OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Attorneys for Respondent

         OF COUNSEL:

          DENNIS A. RAMBAUD, AAG

          MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

          Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Petitioner, an inmate currently incarcerated at Wyoming Correctional Facility, filed this petition on April 14, 2016 seeking a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as a pro se litigant. See Dkt. No. 1. In his petition for writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner argues that his sentence imposed by the Onondaga County Court in 2006 was illegal, that the State of New York miscalculated his aggregate prison term, and that the state courts have violated his right against double jeopardy by refusing to correct the sentence. See Id. at 5-6.

         On September 29, 2016, Magistrate Judge Baxter issued a Report-Recommendation, recommending that the petition be denied and dismissed on the grounds that the petition was filed outside of the one-year statute of limitation period as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). See Dkt. No. 16. On October 13, 2016, Petitioner filed his objections to Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation. See Dkt. No. 17. In his objections, Petitioner contends that his petition is not time-barred because "the State's recent miscalculation that the sentence had fully expired did not exist when the Petitioner could have brought an earlier Petition." See Id. at 2.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Please refer to the Report-Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Baxter on September 29, 2016 for the relevant facts and procedural history. See Dkt. No. 16 at 3-7.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Statute of Limitations

         The enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") brought about significant new limitations on the power of a federal court to grant habeas relief to a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. One of the most significant changes to a prisoner's litigation landscape under the AEDPA was the institution of a one-year statute of limitations applicable to habeas petitions filed after April 24, 1996. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The law now provides as follows:

(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 ...

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.