Hughes v. Campbell

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GEORGE J. HAZEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Respondent filed a Limited Answer to the above-entitled Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus asserting that the petition must be dismissed because it is untimely. ECF No. 3. The Court granted Petitioner Anthony Thomas Hughes an opportunity to file a Response to address the timeliness of the Petition and discuss whether equitable tolling of the limitations period applies. Petitioner filed a Response to the Limited Answer. ECF No. 5. No. hearing is necessary to resolve the issues presented. See Rule 8(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts and Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2018); see also Fisher v. Lee, 215 F.3d 438, 455 (4th Cir. 2000) (petitioner not entitled to a hearing under 28 U.S.C. §2254(e)(2)). For the reasons that follow, the petition shall be dismissed and a certificate of appealability shall not issue.

I. Background

Hughes was prosecuted on a 25-count indictment in the Circuit Court for Carroll County, Maryland in connection with the attempted murder of his ex-wife and others. The Court of Special Appeals summarized the facts of the underlying crime as follows:

On [the] evening [of December 31, 2002], Hughes broke into the home of his ex-wife, Ellen Redifer, in Westminster Carroll County. Redifer, her daughter, Arianna Hughes and Arianna's boyfriend, Sean Malay, fled from the house, and were pursued by Hughes. Hughes caught Redifer and struck her multiple times in the head, neck and upper chest with a large framing hammer. Malay attempted

to intervene but was threatened with the hammer Redifer's neighbor, John Glover, responded and pulled Hughes away from Redifer, and he too was struck with the hammer. Hughes and Glover grappled, and Hughes cut Glover in the back of the head with a box cutter knife. At that point Hughes ran from the scene but returned and attempted to run down all of them with his car. Hughes then fled to a relative's house in West Virginia, where he was later arrested. Redifer survived the critical injuries sustained in the attack.

Hughes v. State, 243 Md.App. 187, 192 (2019), cert, denied, 467 Md. 273 (2020).

On July 21, 2003, Hughes stood trial on an agreed statement of facts and the court found him guilty on all counts. Id. "The court imposed a sentence of life plus 45 years' imprisonment" on January 27, 2004. Id. at 193, see also ECF No. 3-1 at 42-43.^[1]

Hughes filed an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals alleging that he had not knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to ajury trial. Hughes, 243 Md.App. at 193. The appellate court reversed his convictions and remanded the matter for a new trial. ECF No. 3-1 at 38-39.

On November 14, 2005, Hughes entered a guilty plea pursuant to a binding plea agreement. He agreed to plead guilty to five counts of the indictment: "Count 1 - attempted first-degree murder of Redifer; Count 7 - first-degree assault of the neighbor, John Glover; Count 11 - first-degree burglary; and to Counts 14 and 15 - second-degree assault of Arianna Hughes and Sean Malay, respectively." Hughes, 243 Md.App. at 193. "In exchange for the guilty plea the State agreed to ask for a sentence of 75 years' incarceration with all but 45 years suspended for the attempted murder count (Count 1). The remaining four counts (Counts 7, 11, 14 and 15) were to carry either suspended or concurrent sentences." Id.

On February 10, 2006, Hughes was sentenced as follows: Count 1: 75 years with all but 45 years suspended; Count 7: 25 years consecutive, all suspended; and for the remaining three counts

Hughes received lesser, concurrent sentences.^[2] ECF No. 3-1 at 21. For the remaining 20 counts in the indictment the State entered a nolle prosequi. Id. at 26-29. Hughes did not file an appeal.

On March 13, 2006, Hughes filed a motion for modification of sentence which the Carroll County Circuit Court denied on March 23, 2006. ECF no. 3-1 at 20-21. Hughes filed no other pleadings in the case for more than six years.

On September 5, 2012, Hughes filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, which the court denied on September 25, 2012. ECF No. 3-1 at 18.

On October 17, 2012, Hughes filed what ostensibly was an application for leave to appeal the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence; however, because his pro se pleading was inartfully entitled "Application for Leave to Appeal Denied the Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence" no action was taken on the pleading. See Hughes 243 Md.App. at 194.

On February 10, 2016, a petition for post-conviction relief was filed on Hughes' behalf by counsel. ECF No. 3-1 at 17. A hearing was held on January 4, 2017 and on April 3, 2017, the circuit court issued a memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part post-conviction relief and reconsideration of the motion to correct illegal sentence. Id. at 12. Specifically, the circuit court vacated the guilty plea as to Count 7 for which a 25-year consecutive, suspended sentence that was imposed because it breached the terms of the plea agreement and ordered a new trial as to that count. Hughes, 243 Md.App. at 195.

Hughes filed an application for leave to appeal the partial denial of post-conviction relief and a notice of appeal the partial denial of reconsideration of the motion to correct illegal sentence. The State entered a nolle prosequi as to Count 7 at the initial appearance for the new trial ordered by the post-conviction court. Hughes, 243 Md.App. at 195. Hughes contended on appeal that the

remedy chosen by the post-conviction court was improper and argued that the post-conviction court should have reviewed "what the plea agreement contemplated and whether the State and the trial court complied with its terms." Id. at 198. In the November 7, 2019 reported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the post-conviction court's decision. Id. at 191-2. Certiorari review was denied by the Court of Appeals on February 28, 2020. Hughes v. State, 467 Md. 273 (2020).

Hughes filed his federal habeas petition on April 14, 2020, the date he signed the petition. ECF No. 1 at 14. Although the petition contains very little in the way of argument or a list of claims asserted, it appears that Hughes is attempting to raise the same claim raised in his post-conviction appeal: that all of his sentences should have been vacated and a new trial ordered due to their illegality. Id.

II. Standard of Review

A one-year statute of limitations applies to habeas petitions in non-capital cases for a person convicted in a state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). This section provides:

(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