Ellis v. Hutchinson ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                          UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    RONALD QUITMAN ELLIS,                 
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.
    RONALD HUTCHINSON, Warden,                       No. 00-6870
    Maryland House of Corrections; J.
    JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney
    General of the State of Maryland,
    Respondents-Appellees.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
    (CA-00-1379-JFM)
    Submitted: November 28, 2000
    Decided: December 19, 2000
    Before LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and
    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Fred Warren Bennett, Michael E. Lawlor, BENNETT & NATHANS,
    L.L.P., Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. J. Joseph Curran, Jr.,
    Attorney General of Maryland, Ann N. Bosse, Assistant Attorney
    General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    2                        ELLIS v. HUTCHINSON
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Ronald Quitman Ellis appeals the district court’s order dismissing
    his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2254
     (West 1994 & Supp.
    2000) as untimely. Subsequent to the district court’s decision, we held
    that the final day of the one-year limitation period for petitioners
    whose convictions became final prior to the enactment of the AEDPA
    was April 24, 1997. Hernandez v. Caldwell, 
    235 F.3d 435
    , 439 (4th
    Cir. 2000). Because Ellis filed his state habeas petition on April 24,
    1997, and the one-year period was tolled for the entire time his appli-
    cation for post-conviction relief was properly pending in the Mary-
    land courts, Taylor v. Lee, 
    186 F.3d 557
    , 561 (4th Cir. 1999), cert.
    denied, ___ U.S. ___, 
    120 S. Ct. 1262
     (2000), Ellis’ petition was
    timely filed. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district
    court, and remand for consideration on the merits. We dispense with
    oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    REVERSED AND REMANDED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-6870

Filed Date: 12/19/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014