United States District Court, D. Arizona
LESLIE A. BOWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the court is an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus filed on July 8, 2013, by Dell Edwin Boswell, an inmate confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex in Florence, Arizona. (Doc. 4) Boswell argues (1) the state lacked sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict and (2) the trial judge personally found aggravating factors, which can only be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
Magistrate Judge Bowman presides over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 14) The petition will be denied. It is time-barred.
Summary of the Case
On February 3, 1994, Boswell was convicted of sexual conduct with a minor under fourteen. (Doc. 4, p. 2) He was subsequently sentenced to the aggravated maximum of 25 years in prison. Id. Boswell appealed, arguing primarily that the victim's testimony was unreliable and that the evidence failed to corroborate her claims. (Doc. 4, p. 6) On June 4, 1996, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. (Doc. 12, p. 2) Boswell did not seek further review from the Arizona Supreme Court.
Approximately fourteen years later in 2010, Boswell petitioned for post-conviction relief arguing that the trial judge erred in imposing an aggravated sentence without relying on a jury to find aggravating factors. (Doc. 12-1, p. 12) In August of 2011, the Pima County Superior Court denied the petition as untimely. (Doc. 12-1, pp. 26-27) In 2012, the Arizona Court of Appeals denied Boswell's subsequent petition for relief, and the Arizona Supreme Court denied his petition for review. (Doc. 12, p. 3)
On June 18, 2013, Boswell filed a petition in this court for a writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 1) In his amended petition, he claims (1) he was convicted on insufficient evidence and (2) he was improperly sentenced. (Doc. 4, pp. 6-7) In their answer, the respondents argue the petition is time-barred. (Doc. 12) They are correct.
The limitation period is set by the AEDPA's section 2244(d)(1), which reads as follows:
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 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 ...