United States District Court, D. New Jersey
D. CORONADO, Ocean County Prosecutor ROBERTA DIBIASE,
Supervising Assistant Prosecutor Ocean County
Prosecutor's Office Attorneys for Respondent Willie Banks
G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.
the Court is Respondent State of New Jersey's motion to
dismiss Margarito Mauleon's petition for writ of habeas
corpus as untimely. (ECF No. 6). Petitioner did not file any
opposition to the motion. For the reasons stated herein, the
Court will dismiss the petition as time-barred, and no
certificate of appealability will issue. Petitioner shall
have 30 days to submit any arguments as to why he should be
given the benefit of equitable tolling.
Ocean County jury convicted Petitioner of first-degree
attempted murder, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:11-3, 2C:5-1;
second-degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful
purpose, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-4(a); third-degree
aggravated assault, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C: 12-1 (b)(2);
fourth-degree aggravated assault, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:
12-1(b)(4); third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon,
N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-5(d); and third-degree
possession of a controlled dangerous substance, N.J. Stat.
Ann. § 2C:35-10(a)(1). (ECF No. 6-2). "The proofs
at trial showed defendant went to the home of his former
girlfriend and shot the victim in front of her and one other
witness." (ECF No. 6-2 at 1-2 (citing State v.
Mauleon, No. A-5003-07 ( N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. Aug. 13,
2009), certif. denied, 985 A.2d 646 (N.J. 2009))).
The trial court sentenced Petitioner to a twenty-year term of
imprisonment with a seventeen-year period of parole
ineligibility. (ECF No. 6-2 at 2). The Appellate Division
affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing on
direct appeal. (Ibid.). The New Jersey Supreme Court
denied certification on December 16, 2009. State v.
Mauleon, 985 A.2d 646 (N.J. 2009).
was resentenced on October 23, 2009 to a fifteen-year term of
imprisonment subject to a period of parole ineligibility
under New Jersey's No. Early Release Act, N.J. Stat. Ann.
§ 2C:43-7.2. (ECF No. 6-2 at 2). He appealed, and the
Appellate Division affirmed the sentence on its excessive
sentencing calendar on January 13, 2011. (Ibid).
Petitioner did not file a petition for certification from
September 19, 2014, Petitioner filed a post-conviction relief
("PCR") petition in the Law Division. (ECF No. 1
¶ 11(a)(3)). According to the Appellate Division, the
PCR court denied the petition as time-barred under New Jersey
Court Rule 3:22-12(a) "because it was not filed within
five years of the entry of defendant's original judgment
of conviction on February 1, 2008, and defendant failed to
demonstrate an entitlement to relief from the time-bar as
required under the Rule." (ECF No. 6-2 at 3).
The PCR court also denied Petitioner's ineffective
assistance of counsel claims on the merits. (Ibid).
On January 26, 2017, the Appellate Division affirmed the PCR
court's decision on the merits of the Petitioner's
ineffective assistance of counsel claim and stated that it
was "unnecessary to consider defendant's argument
that the court erred by finding his petition was time -barred
under Rule 3:22-12." (ECF No. 6-2 at 6). The
New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification on March 21,
2017. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 11(d)).
submitted his § 2254 petition on April 27, 2017. (ECF
No. 1). The Court ordered Respondent to answer or move to
dismiss the petition on timeliness grounds. (ECF No. 4).
Respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss on September
27, 2017, arguing the petition was filed after the one-year
statute of limitations expired. (ECF No. 6). Petitioner did
not file a response to the motion.
habeas petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA").
AEDPA imposes a one-year period of limitation on a petitioner
seeking to challenge his state conviction and sentence
through a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. Under § 2244(d)(1), the limitations
period runs 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