Villanueva v. Anglin

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendants’ habeas petitions challenging their sentences imposed after each defendant had entered into guilty plea, where defendants alleged that govt. deprived them of benefit of their guilty pleas by imposing three-year terms of mandatory supervised release (MSR) in spite of fact that their plea agreements made no mention of MSR. Neither defendant filed timely habeas petition within one year of date on which their convictions became final, and neither defendant could assert later date to trigger one-year filing requirement where: (1) both defendants were told by court at sentencing hearing that their crimes subjected them to MSR; and (2) both defendants could have inquired at sentencing hearing whether MSR was part of their plea bargains. Moreover, defendants’ claims lacked legal merit where both defendants failed to show that prosecutor promised to waive MSR as inducement for them to enter guilty plea.