United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Dumas (“Dumas” or “Petitioner”) has
filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Docket No.
1)(”Petition”) alleging three grounds for relief.
Specifically, Petitioner asserts the following claims in his
Ground One: The Defendant's
Federal Constitution Rights were violated when DNA
Supervisor, Kerly Fenesan, was allowed to testify to work
performed by criminalist Sherri Crook when Ms. Crook's
Criminalistics Report was introduced at trial. This was
contrary to and an unreasonable application of the Supreme
Court's holding in Melendez-Diaz v.
Ground Two: Defendant received
constitutionally ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
where the Supreme Court decided Melendez-Diaz v.
Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (209) before the defendant
filed his appellate brief but appellate counsel failed to
challenge the admission of the Criminalistics Report-and the
testimony of Kelly Fenesan as a “substitute
analyst.” This was contrary to and an unreasonable
application of the Supreme Court's holding in
Strickland v. Washington, and Me1endez.-Diaz v.
Ground Three: The trial court
abused its discretion when it denied the defendant's
motion for post-conviction discovery of the “Entire Lab
File” where the testimony of Kelly Fenesan, DNA
Supervisor, leaves doubt that she personally had a hand in
testing DNA evidence submitted by the defendant and the
complainant, especially where it appears that they were
tested by Assigned DNA Analyst: Dominique Savinielli. This
denied the petitioner a fair trial, which he is entitled to
under the United States Constitution.
Memorandum of Decision and Order addresses Respondent Colette
Goguen's Motion To Dismiss Petition For Writ Of Habeas
Corpus (Docket No. 14). For the reasons set forth below, this
motion is allowed.
has filed a motion to dismiss the Petition as time barred
pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. Â§2244(d)(1), et
seq., which requires a state prisoner to file his
federal habeas petition within one year of the date on which
his state conviction becomes final. Respondent asserts that
Dumas's conviction became final in April 2011 when he
failed to file an application for leave to obtain further
appellate review (“ALOFAR”) with the Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts (“SJC”) after the
Massachusetts Court of Appeals (“MAC”) denied his
direct appeal. Dumas did not file his Petition until April
2017. Dumas asserts that his appeal is timely because the
Grounds For Relief raised his Petition were first presented
to the state court in his post-conviction motions filed in
2014-- the SJC denied his ALOFAR seeking review of the
MAC's affirmance of the trial court's denial of those
claims on March 6, 2017, and his Petition was filed within a
year of that denial. Dumas also argues that if this Court
determines that his Petition is time barred, extraordinary
circumstances exist which warrant the application of
April 24, 1996, the statutes governing habeas corpus
petitions for prisoners in state and federal custody were
amended by the AEDPA to impose a one year statute of
limitations period on the filing of all non-capital habeas
petitions in federal courts. See 28 U.S.C.
Â§2244(d)(1); see also Zuluaga v. United States, 971
F.Supp. 616 (D.Mass. 1997). In general, for prisoners in
state custody, the limitations period begins to run on
“the date which the judgment becomes final by
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for
such review.” 28 U.S.C. Â§2244(d)(1)(a). The
Respondent's supporting memorandum sets out the factual
and procedural background of this case in detail and includes
a comprehensive discussion of the applicable legal standards.
Based on the legal arguments set forth in the
Respondent's memorandum, which I adopt, I find that
Dumas's Petition is barred by the AEDPA's one year
statute of limitations and therefore, must be
Respondent Colette Goguen's Motion To Dismiss Petition
For Writ Of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 14) is