Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing as untimely defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his second degree sexual assault and false imprisonment convictions, where said petition was filed beyond applicable one-year period for filing said petition. While defendant conceded that instant petition was untimely, he argued that he was entitled to equitable tolling on account of his borderline mental retardation diagnosis. However, defendant was not entitled to equitable tolling, since: (1) defendant failed to show that his mental limitations actually prevented him from filing timely habeas petition, where he was able to file and pursue other pleadings related to his habeas petition; and (2) defendant could offer only conclusory allegations that he was reasonably diligent in pursuing habeas relief.