Jerome Meraz v. Wendy Kelley

Eighth Circuit

Jerome Meraz v. Wendy Kelley

671 F. App'x 943

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedDecember 21, 2016

Docket16-1744

StatusUnpublished

This text of 671 F. App'x 943 (Jerome Meraz v. Wendy Kelley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jerome Meraz v. Wendy Kelley, 671 F. App'x 943 (8th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jerome Meraz—-who pleaded guilty in Arkansas in 2008 to stalking, kidnapping, residential burglary, and misdemeanor theft—appeals from the judgment of the District Court 1 denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred.

Following de novo review, we agree with the District Court that the petition is time-barred. Even if we were to assume that the one-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) was tolled during the pendency of Meraz’s collateral challenges to his criminal conviction in state court, his federal petition was still untimely filed with no grounds for equitable tolling. See Camacho v. Hobbs, 774 F.3d 931, 934-35 (8th Cir.) (discussing the dismissal of a § 2254 petition as time-barred following an Arkansas plea proceeding), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 81, 193 L.Ed.2d 34 (2015); Burns v. Prudden, 588 F.3d 1148, 1150 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for equitable tolling).

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel’s request to withdraw, and we deny as moot Meraz’s pending motion.

1

. The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Jerome Meraz—-who pleaded guilty in Arkansas in 2008 to stalking, kidnapping, residential burglary, and misdemeanor theft—appeals from the judgment of the District Court 1 denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred.

Following de novo review, we agree with the District Court that the petition is time-barred. Even if we were to assume that the one-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) was tolled during the pendency of Meraz’s collateral challenges to his criminal conviction in state court, his federal petition was still untimely filed with no grounds for equitable tolling. See Camacho v. Hobbs, 774 F.3d 931, 934-35 (8th Cir.) (discussing the dismissal of a § 2254 petition as time-barred following an Arkansas plea proceeding), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 81, 193 L.Ed.2d 34 (2015); Burns v. Prudden, 588 F.3d 1148, 1150 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for equitable tolling).

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel’s request to withdraw, and we deny as moot Meraz’s pending motion.

1

. The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

671 F. App'x 943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jerome-meraz-v-wendy-kelley-ca8-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack