Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrialmotionhabeas corpusfelonyparolerespondentgrand jurymotion to dismiss
trialmotionfelonyparolerespondentjury trialgrand jurymotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Gurbisz v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Romero v. Reno
View Case »
Dominguez-Capistran v. Gonzales
View Case »
Lopez-Alegria v. Ilchert
View Case »
Barrera-Landa; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

McFarlane; U.S. v.

Facts

On May 18, 2012, a Fulton County grand jury indicted Roy Latimore on multiple counts, including armed robbery and possession of a firearm during a felony. He was convicted on October 23, 2012, and sentenced to life without parole plus five years. After his convictions were affirmed by the Georgia Court of Appeals and his certiorari petition was denied by the Georgia Supreme Court, Latimore filed an extraordinary motion for a new trial, which was dismissed as untimely. He subsequently filed a state habeas corpus petition, which was also denied, leading to the current federal habeas petition.

On May 18, 2012, a Fulton County grand jury indicted Petitioner and charged him with seven counts of armed robbery, five counts of possession of a firearm during commission of a felony, five counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and two counts of aggravated assault upon a peace officer. Following a jury trial, on October 23, 2012 Petitioner was convicted of five counts of armed robbery and three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and was sentenced to a net total of life without parole plus five years.

Issue

Whether Latimore's federal habeas petition was timely filed under the one-year limitation period set by 28 U.S.C. �44(d)(1).

Whether Latimore's federal habeas petition was timely filed under the one-year limitation period set by 28 U.S.C. �44(d)(1).

Rule

Under 28 U.S.C. �44(d)(1), a one-year limitation period applies for prisoners seeking to challenge the validity of a state court conviction, starting from the date the judgment becomes final.

Under 28 U.S.C. �44(d)(1), a one-year limitation period applies for prisoners seeking to challenge the validity of a state court conviction, starting from the date the judgment becomes final.

Analysis

The court determined that Latimore's convictions became final on April 8, 2019, after the denial of his certiorari petition by the Georgia Supreme Court. The one-year limitation period expired on April 8, 2020. Latimore's federal habeas petition, filed on May 9, 2024, was thus deemed untimely. The court also found that his extraordinary motion for a new trial and motion to vacate void judgment did not toll the limitation period as they were not properly filed.

The court determined that Latimore's convictions became final on April 8, 2019, after the denial of his certiorari petition by the Georgia Supreme Court. The one-year limitation period expired on April 8, 2020. Latimore's federal habeas petition, filed on May 9, 2024, was thus deemed untimely. The court also found that his extraordinary motion for a new trial and motion to vacate void judgment did not toll the limitation period as they were not properly filed.

Conclusion

The court recommended granting the motion to dismiss the habeas petition as untimely and dismissed the action with prejudice.

The court recommended granting the motion to dismiss the habeas petition as untimely and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Who won?

The Respondent prevailed in the case because the court found that Latimore's petition was untimely and did not qualify for tolling.

The Respondent prevailed in the case because the court found that Latimore's petition was untimely and did not qualify for tolling.

You must be