United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT.
Vanessa L. Bryant United States District Judge.
Beth Ann Carpenter (“Carpenter” or
“Petitioner”) brings this writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge her conviction of
capital felony in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §
53a-54b, conspiracy to commit murder in violation of Conn.
Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-48 and 53a-54a, accessory to
commit murder in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§
53a-8(a) and 53a-54(a). See [Dkt. 2 (Habeas
Petition) ¶ 3; Dkt. 11-2 (Mot. Dismiss Ex. B, State
v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785, 794, 882 A.2d 604 (2005))].
Respondent Commissioner of Correction
(“Respondent”) has moved to dismiss on the basis
that the § 2254 petition is untimely. For the foregoing
reasons, this motion is GRANTED.
facts underlying Ms. Carpenter's conviction involve the
1994 death of a man killed by a gunman who was hired by Ms.
Carpenter's lover. See [Dkt. 2 ¶ 4].
Several years after the murder was carried out, Ms. Carpenter
was charged with and convicted of capital felony, conspiracy
to commit murder, and accessory to commit murder. She
received a sentence of life without parole. [Dkt. 2 ¶ 3;
Dkt. 11-2 at 794]. Ms. Carpenter appealed the jury verdict
and the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict
on October 11, 2005. See [Dkt. 11-2]. She then
petitioned for certiorari, but the United States Supreme
Court denied it on March 20, 2006. See [Dkt. 11-3
(Mot. Dismiss Ex. C, Carpenter v. Connecticut, 547
U.S. 1025, 126 S.Ct. 1578 (2006))].
two years later on May 2, 2006, Ms. Carpenter filed her first
petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Connecticut state
court. See [Dkt. 11-4 (Mot. Dismiss Ex. D, Carpenter
First Habeas Docket) at 1]. She withdrew this petition on
October 14, 2010. Id. at 3.
December 14, 2012, Ms. Carpenter filed her second petition
for a writ of habeas corpus with the state. See
[Dkt. 11-5 (Mot. Dismiss Ex. E, Carpenter Second Habeas
Docket) at 2]. This petition was denied on June 18, 2015.
See id.; [Dkt. 11-6 (Mot. Dismiss Ex. F,
Carpenter v. Warden, No. TSRCV134005058S, 2015 WL
4173947 (Conn. Super. Ct. June 18, 2015))]. Ms. Carpenter
appealed this ruling on July 8, 2015, and the judgment was
affirmed on March 28, 2017. See [Dkt. 11-7 (Mot.
Dismiss Ex. G, Carpenter v. Comm'r of Corr., 171
Conn.App. 758 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017)]. She petitioned the
Connecticut Supreme Court for certification for appeal from
the appellate court but was denied on May 10, 2017.
than filing a petition with the United States Supreme Court,
she filed a § 2254 petition here. She argues trial
counsel was ineffective for two reasons: (1) they failed to
lay a proper foundation that resulted in precluding an
expert's testimony, and (2) they failed to advise her to
consider a plea agreement. See [Dkt. 2 ¶¶
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”) sets a one-year limitations period for
filing § 2254 petitions. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
The one-year limitations period begins to run on the latest
of one of four possible dates:
(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
prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was
initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has
been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or
claims presented could have been discovered through the
exercise of due diligence.
Id. Here, the parties dispute whether the latest
date is (A) the date when the judgment became final, (C) the
date on which a Supreme Court initially recognized a
constitutional right, or (D) the date when the ...