Takemire v. Novak , 57 F. App'x 385 ( 2003 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 6 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
RALPH B. TAKEMIRE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 02-1257
D.C. No. 01-D-815
JUANITA NOVAK; ATTORNEY (D. Colorado)
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
COLORADO,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL, HENRY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Ralph Takemire, a state prisoner, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA)
to appeal the federal district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus
petition. We deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.
Mr. Takemire filed his § 2254 petition on May 2, 2002, alleging that the
trial court erred by accepting his guilty plea when the court knew of Mr.
Takemire’s long history of mental health problems and because the trial court
knew that he was under the influence of mind-altering drugs during the plea
hearing. He also raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, arguing that
counsel encouraged him to plead guilty to avoid the death penalty. The district
court denied the petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The district
court also found that equitable tolling did not excuse the untimeliness of the
petition.
Where, as here, a district court denies a habeas petition on procedural
grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, a COA should
issue if the petitioner demonstrates “that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and
that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct
in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000).
Mr. Takemire’s judgment of conviction was entered on September 4, 1992.
He did not directly appeal from the conviction. His criminal conviction became
-2-
final on October 19, 1992, when the time for his filing a notice of appeal of his
conviction expired.
Congress has “established a one-year period of limitations for [federal]
habeas petitions.” Hoggro v. Boone, 150 F.3d 1223, 1225 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). By statute, the one-year period of limitations generally
begins running from “the date on which the judgment became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.”
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). For prisoners whose convictions became final prior to
April 24, 1996, the limitations period commenced on April 24, 1996, and expired
one year later. See Hoggro, 150 F.3d at 1225-26. However, the one-year
limitations period is tolled while a defendant pursues state post-conviction relief,
see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), and may also in rare circumstances “be subject to
equitable tolling.” Miller v. Marr, 141 F.3d 976, 978 (10th Cir. 1998); see
Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799, 808 (10th Cir. 2000).
Having carefully examined the record on appeal, we conclude the district
court was correct in finding the § 2254 petition was untimely. Mr. Takemire’s
conviction became final prior to April 24, 1996. His third state post-conviction
application was filed on August 24, 1995 and was dismissed on June 13, 1997,
when the trial court granted Mr. Takemire’s motion to abandon his post-
conviction challenges. Thus, the one-year limitation period was tolled until Mr.
-3-
Takemire’s post-conviction application was dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(2); Easterwood v. Champion, 213 F.3d 1321, 1323-24 (10th Cir. 2000).
Mr. Takemire’s one-year period of limitations began running again on June 13,
1997, and expired on June 12, 1998.
Mr. Takemire did not file his federal habeas petition until May 2, 2002,
almost four years after the statute of limitations expired. Therefore, we agree
with the district court that Mr. Takemire’s federal habeas corpus application was
untimely.
Mr. Takemire asserts that the limitations period should be equitably tolled
based on his history of severe psychological distress and his long standing
physical complications. We agree, however, with the district court that Mr.
Takemire “does not demonstrate any extraordinary circumstance beyond his
control that made it impossible to file” his petition within the one-year limitation
period. Aplt’s Br., App. A at 8 (Dist. Ct. Order filed May 3, 2002). The record
indicates that Mr. Takemire was unaware of AEDPA’s one-year limitations
period, however, ignorance of the law does not excuse the failure to comply with
the statute. See Miller, 141 F.3d at 978.
-4-
Accordingly, we DENY the application for a COA and DISMISS the
appeal.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-5-