Judkins v. Hargett ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    DEC 18 1998
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    JERRY W. JUDKINS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    vs.                                                     No. 98-6113
    (D.C. No. CIV-97-1229-R)
    STEVE HARGETT,                                         (W.D. Okla.)
    Respondent - Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges. **
    Petitioner-Appellant Jerry W. Judkins, an inmate appearing pro se, appeals
    from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed
    pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a
    certificate of appealability. The district court determined that his petition was
    untimely, being filed after the one-year grace period beyond the effective date of
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    **
    After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
    panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
    assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th
    Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub. L.
    No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, that was recognized in United States v. Simmonds,
    
    111 F.3d 737
    , 746 (10th Cir. 1997).
    Mr. Judkins’ state conviction became final on December 22, 1994, prior to
    the enactment of the AEDPA. Accordingly, in the absence of a suspension of the
    time limit, he had until April 23, 1997 to file his federal habeas petition. See
    Hoggro v. Boone, 
    150 F.3d 1223
    , 1226 (10th Cir. 1998); 
    Simmonds, 111 F.3d at 746
    . Mr. Judkins did file a state court application for post-conviction relief on
    April 23, 1997, and he correctly argues that according to § 2244(d)(2), the period
    of limitation should have been tolled while his state collateral review was
    pending. See 
    Hoggro, 150 F.3d at 1226
    .
    However, Mr. Judkins’ habeas petition still fails to meet the deadline, even
    as extended by the state proceedings. The state trial court denied Mr. Judkins
    post-conviction relief on June 3, 1997. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
    affirmed the denial on July 7, 1997. With the tolling provided by § 2244(d)(2),
    Mr. Judkins had until July 8, 1997 to file his federal habeas petition. Only one
    day remained after the tolling period because Mr. Judkins did not file his state
    court application until the last day of the grace period for the federal petition.
    Because he did not file his federal petition until July 25, 1997, the district court
    correctly found that his petition was untimely. In addition, we agree with the
    -2-
    district court that Mr. Judkins has not shown any recognized basis for equitably
    tolling the deadline beyond July 8, 1997. We GRANT Mr. Judkins’ motion to
    proceed in forma pauperis, but because Mr. Judkins has failed to make “a
    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. §
    2253(c)(2), we DENY his request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS
    the appeal.
    Entered for the Court
    Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
    Circuit Judge
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 98-6113

Filed Date: 12/18/1998

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021