Robideau v. Stenseth

Background

Raymond Clyde Robideau was convicted in state court in 2011 of second-degree intentional murder. He filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a person in state custody to seek federal habeas relief, arguing that his sentence was unlawful. United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster recommended denying the petition as untimely. Robideau objected and argued that the petition was timely.

Analysis

The court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) generally gives a person one year to file a federal habeas petition challenging a state-court judgment. The period can begin from one of several dates, including when the judgment becomes final, when a state-created filing impediment is removed, when a newly recognized and retroactive constitutional right is recognized, or when the factual basis of the claim could have been discovered with reasonable diligence.

Robideau relied on Garza v. Idaho, arguing that the Supreme Court had held that waivers involving sentencing issues could be challenged at any time. The court rejected that argument, explaining that Garza addressed whether prejudice is presumed in an ineffective-assistance claim involving a signed appeal waiver; it did not make Robideau’s petition timely.

The court stated that Robideau did not claim that the state had prevented him from seeking habeas relief earlier, that he relied on a newly recognized constitutional right, or that the factual basis of his claim could not have been discovered earlier. The court therefore concluded that none of the exceptions to the one-year limitation period applied.

Ruling

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright overruled Robideau’s objection, adopted the November 28, 2023 Report and Recommendation, and denied Robideau’s petition under § 2254. The court issued no certificate of appealability and directed that judgment be entered.