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.

Peoples v. Falk

United States District Court, D. Colorado

April 7, 2015

LOUIS PEOPLES, JR., Applicant,
v.
JAMES FALK, Warden and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondents.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior District Judge.

Applicant, Louis Peoples, Jr., is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections at the Sterling Correctional Facility in Sterling, Colorado. Mr. Peoples has filed pro se an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 1) (the "Application") challenging the validity of his convictions in two Denver District Court cases. For the reasons that follow, the Petition will be dismissed as untimely because it was not filed within the one-year limitations period provided for under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). In addition, the only timely claim does not provide a basis for granting federal habeas corpus relief. An appropriate order follows.

A. Relevant Procedural History

On November 14, 2002, following a jury trial in the Denver County District Court, Applicant was found guilty of Criminal Attempt to Commit Murder in the First Degree, Assault in the First Degree and Assault in the Second Degree stemming from two separate attacks on his then girlfriend. The trial court found that Peoples had seven prior felony convictions, adjudicated him a habitual criminal, and sentenced him to a total of 128 years in prison. Peoples filed a timely appeal to the Colorado Court of Appeals (CCA), which affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal. People v. Peoples, 03CA101 (Colo.App. Jan. 13, 2005) (not published pursuant to CAR 35(f)) (ECF No. 21-6). On October 3, 2005, the Colorado Supreme Court (CSC) denied Applicant's petition for certiorari (ECF No. 21-8).

On July 28, 2006, Peoples filed his first post-conviction motion (ECF No. 21-1, p. 13) alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Applicant's Motion and the CCA affirmed on July 22, 2010. People v. Peoples, No. 09CA94 (Colo.App. July 22, 2010) (not published pursuant to CAR 35(f)). On January 18, 2011, the CSC denied certiorari review.

On April 29, 2011, Peoples filed a second post-conviction motion alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel. The trial court issued a written order denying it without holding a hearing. On November 13, 2013, the CCA affirmed holding that, other than his claim of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, Peoples' claims were time-barred and successive because they could have been raised on direct appeal or during his first post-conviction proceeding. People v. Peoples, No. 11CA2166 (Colo.App. Nov. 14, 2013) (not published pursuant to CAR 35(f)). The CSC denied certiorari review on September 8, 2014.

Peoples filed his habeas corpus application on October 28, 2014. He raised the following claims in his Amended Brief filed on December 17, 2014.

1. The State's Violation of The Uniform Mandatory of Disposition Act Deprived the Applicant of Due Process of Law.
2. Applicant's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights Were Violated by Court Imposed Cruel and Unusual Punishment to Effect Speedy Trial Waiver Which Counsel Permitted and Aided.
3. Abuse of Discretion by Trial Court for Failure to Correct Potential Conflict of Interest: Violating Applicant's Sixth Amendment Right by Way of the Fourteenth Amendment to a Fair Trial (Due Process) and Effective Assistance of Counsel.
4. Applicant's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights Were Violated Pursuant to the Confrontation Clause When Expert's Video Recording Was Altered in Parts and Used as Exhibit at Trial.
5. Applicant's Sixth Amendment Right to a Fair Trial Was Violated Due to Prosecutor Misconduct.
6. Applicant's Sixth Amendment Right to Public Trial (As Incorporated Through the Fourteenth Amendment) Was Violated by Court Officials Tampering with the Jury During Deliberations.
7. Applicant's Fourteenth Amendment Right Was Violated and Hardship Was Placed upon His Appellate ...

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.