Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Page v. Baker

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 12, 2018

DANIEL PAGE, Petitioner,
v.
RENEE BAKER, et al., Respondents.

          ORDER

          MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This action is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Daniel Page, a Nevada prisoner. Before the Court is Respondents' motion to dismiss. The Court will grant the motion to dismiss in part and deny it in part. The Court will dismiss one claim in Ground 1 of Page's amended habeas petition and will set a schedule for Respondents to file an answer responding to Page's remaining claims.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Page was convicted on October 21, 2011, upon guilty pleas in Nevada's Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County of sexual assault and use of a minor in producing pornography, and he was sentenced to two consecutive terms of life in prison with the possibility of parole after ten years on each. (See Judgment of Conviction, Exh. 22 (ECF No. 17-22).)

         Page appealed, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed his conviction on September 13, 2012. (See Order of Affirmance, Exh. 32 (ECF No. 18-1).)

         On January 16, 2013, Page filed a pro se habeas petition in state court. (See Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Post-Conviction), Exh. 34 (ECF No. 18-3).) The state district court appointed counsel, and, with counsel, Page filed an amended petition. (See Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Post-Conviction), Exh. 38 (ECF No. 18-7 at 2-15).) The court held an evidentiary hearing and on November 24, 2014, denied Page's petition. (See Transcript of Evidentiary Hearing, Exh. 41 (ECF No. 18-11); Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, Exh. 48 (ECF No. 48).) Page appealed, and the Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of his petition on November 19, 2015. (See Order of Affirmance, Exh. 54 (ECF No. 19-6).) The appellate court issued its remittitur on December 15, 2015. (See Remittitur, Exh. 55 (ECF No. 19-7).)

         On October 17, 2016, this Court received Page's pro se habeas petition (ECF No. 6) for filing, which initiated this action. On November 30, 2016, the Court screened Page's petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, ordered the petition served on Respondents, granted Page's motion for appointment of counsel, and appointed counsel to represent him. (See Order entered November 30, 2016 (ECF No. 5).) Counsel appeared for Page on December 14, 2016, and Page filed an amended petition on August 2, 2017, with the aid of counsel. (See Notice of Appearance of Counsel (ECF No. 9); First Amended Petition (ECF No. 16).)

         Page's amended petition asserts two grounds for relief. In Ground 1, Page claims his federal constitutional rights were violated because “[t]he trial court erred by denying [his] pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea as said plea was not knowingly, freely and voluntarily given.” (First Amended Petition (ECF No. 16 at 8).) In Ground 2, Page claims that he “received ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel failed to adequately investigate [his] medical condition prior to entering his plea.” (Id. at 11.)

         On September 28, 2017, Respondents filed their motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25), in which they contend that both claims in Page's amended petition are barred by the statute of limitations. Page filed an opposition (ECF No. 26) on November 21, 2017, and Respondents filed a reply (ECF No. 27) on December 20, 2017.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Statute of Limitations-Legal Standards

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), enacted in 1996, established a one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas petitions filed by prisoners challenging state convictions or sentences. The statue provides:

(1) 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.