Laboy v. Carroll, CIV.A. 05-352-JJF.

• Decision Date: 13 July 2006
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A. 05-352-JJF.,CIV.A. 05-352-JJF.
• Citation: 437 F.Supp.2d 260
• Parties: Arturo LABOY, Petitioner, v. Thomas L. CARROLL, Warden, and Carl C. Danberg, Attorney General of the State of Delaware, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

437 F.Supp.2d 260

Arturo LABOY, Petitioner, v. Thomas L. CARROLL, Warden, and Carl C. Danberg, Attorney General of the State of Delaware, Respondents.

No. CIV.A. 05-352-JJF.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

July 13, 2006.

Arturo Laboy, Pro se Petitioner.

Gregory E. Smith, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE, for Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

FARNAN, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is an Application For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Petitioner Arturo Laboy. (D.I.2.) For the reasons discussed, the Court will deny the Petition.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 15, 1994, a Delaware Superior Court jury convicted Petitioner of assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, stalking, terroristic threatening, and two counts of possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony. On May 13, 1994, the Superior Court sentenced Petitioner to a total of 44 years at Level V incarceration, suspended after 41 ½ years for probation. Petitioner appealed, and while the appeal was pending, Petitioner filed a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b). The Superior Court denied the Rule 35(b) motion on August 8, 1994. Thereafter, on June 23, 1995, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's convictions and sentences. See State v. Laboy, 2003 WL 21517974 (Del.Super.Ct. July 1, 2003).

On February 26, 2001, Petitioner filed a second Rule 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence. On February 27, 2001, a Superior Court judge, ("Judge A"), granted the Rule 35(b) motion in part and reduced the sentence imposed for one conviction from 20 years at Level V to 5 years at Level V. However, on March 2, 2001, another Superior Court judge, ("Judge B"), denied the Rule 35 motion because it was filed more than 90 days after the imposition of sentence. In a motion dated March 19, 2001, the State requested Judge B to vacate the February 27, 2001 issued by Judge A. On March 21, 2001, Judge B granted the motion and vacated the February 27, 2001 order. Id.

On October 17, 2002, Petitioner filed a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the course of events that occurred in 2001. The Superior Court denied the petition. Id. In 2003, Petitioner filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 ("Rule 61 motion") challenging the 2001 events, which the Superior Court denied. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. Id.; Laboy v. State, 846 A.2d 238 (Table), 2003 WL 22457072 (Del.2003).

On September 16, 2004, Petitioner filed a Rule 35(a) motion, which the Superior Court denied. Petitioner appealed, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. Laboy v. State, 871 A.2d 1128 (Table), 2005 WL 850426 (Del.2005).

Petitioner filed the instant Petition For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. 2254. (D.I. 2.) The State filed an Answer, and Petitioner filed a Response. (D.I. 12; D.I. 14.)

The Petition is ready for review.

II. DISCUSSION

Petitioner presents four claims for relief in his Petition, all stemming from Judge B's 2001 orders regarding his February 2001 Rule 35(b) motion. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that: (1) the Superior Court violated his due process rights by first granting, and then denying, his Rule 35(b) motion for sentence reduction, and finally, by vacating the original February 27, 2001 order issued by Judge A, because the State did not file a motion for reargument within 10 days of Judge A's order; (2) the Superior Court violated his due process rights because it lacked jurisdiction to reinstate his original 1994 sentence; (3) the Superior Court denied him due process because the Superior Court judge who denied the motion for reduction of sentence was prejudiced against him as a result of a prior child custody hearing in Family Court; and (4) the Delaware Supreme Court denied him due process when it failed to reverse the Superior Court's orders denying him sentence reduction because the Delaware Supreme Court did not apply the different tests in determining whether Judge B was biased. (D.I. 2)

A. Cognizability

A federal court does not have jurisdiction to provide habeas relief unless a petitioner alleges that his conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Consequently, the "federal role in reviewing an application for habeas corpus relief is limited to evaluating what occurred in the state or federal proceedings that actually led to the petitioner's conviction; what occurred in the petitioner's collateral proceedings does not enter into the habeas calculation." Hassine v. Zimmerman, 160 F.3d 941, 954 (3d Cir.1998). Additionally, claims asserting a violation of a state law, or challenging a state court's interpretation of state law, are not cognizable on federal habeas review, even if they are couched in terms of due process. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-8, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991); Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 211, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982); Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 691, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975); Johnson v. Rosemeyer, 117 F.3d 104, 109 (3d Cir.1997); Dorn v. Kearney, 1997 WL 811565, at *2 (D.Del. Dec. 10, 1997). For example, a state court's sentencing decision and claims arising out of that decision are generally not constitutionally cognizable, unless the sentencing decision exceeds the statutory limits or is wholly unauthorized by law. See Bozza v. United States, 330 U.S. 160, 166, 67 S.Ct. 645, 91 L.Ed. 818 (1947).

Applying the foregoing principles, if a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) constitutes a post-conviction proceeding collateral to the original proceeding, all four of Petitioner's challenges to the Superior Court's denial of the motion fail to allege issues cognizable on federal habeas review. If a Rule 35(b) motion does not constitute a collateral proceeding for cognizability purposes,¹ then the Court concludes that Claims Three and Four present cognizable claims because they allege federal due process issues. However, Claims One and Two still present issues that are not cognizable on federal habeas review because they assert violations of state law; Claim One alleges that the state courts erred in applying a state procedural rule, and Claim Two challenges the Superior Court's jurisdiction. See, e.g., Jones v. Carroll, 388 F.Supp.2d 413, 420-21 (D.Del. 2005)(claims challenging a state court's jurisdiction are not cognizable on federal habeas review)(collecting cases)(cert. of app. denied by 3rd Cir. on Mar. 22, 2006). Thus, the Court will dismiss Claims One and Two because these state law claims are not cognizable in the instant proceeding.

B. The Entire Petition Is Time-Barred

Even if Claims One and Two could be construed to assert issues cognizable on federal habeas review, the Court concludes that the entire Petition must be dismissed as time-barred. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") established a one-year period of limitation for the filing of habeas petitions by state prisoners, which begins to 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 retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). In the instant case, Petitioner's conviction became final on September 21, 1995, ninety-days after the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. See Kapral v. United States, 166 F.3d 565, 575, 578 (3d Cir.1999); see Jones v. Morton, 195 F.3d 153, 157 (3d Cir.1999). However, because Petitioner's conviction became final prior to the effective date of the AEDPA, the limitations period did not begin to run until April 24, 1996. See Burns v. Morton, 134 F.3d 109, 111 (3d Cir.1998)(allowing one-year grace period to petitioner's whose convictions became final prior to the enactment of the AEDPA). Applying the one-year limitations period from that date, Petitioner was required to file his Petition by April 24, 1997. See Wilson v. Beard, 426 F.3d 653, 662-63 (3d Cir.2005)(holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 6(a) applies to the calculation of the AEDPA's one-year limitations period).

Petitioner did not file the instant Petition until May 22, 2005,² and therefore, the Petition is time-barred. Yet, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), the statute of limitations may be tolled during the pendency of a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review. Here, none of Petitioner's post-conviction motions have any statutory tolling effect. Petitioner's first Rule 35(b) motion was filed on August 4, 1994 and denied on August 8, 1994, well before Petitioner's conviction became final in 1995. Petitioner filed his other Rule 35 motions, his state petition for the writ of habeas corpus, and his Rule 61 motion at different times from February 2001 through 2004, thus, none of these applications have any statutory tolling effect because they were filed well after the expiration of the limitations period in April 1997. See Price v. Taylor, 2002 WL 31107363, at *2 (D.Del. Sept. 23, 2002).

The AEDPA's...