Verikokidis v. Galetka, 10th Cir. (2002)

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit
JUL 5 2002
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ALEX VERIKOKIDIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HENRY GALETKA, Warden, Draper

Facility, Utah State Prison,
No. 01-4203
(D.C. No. 00-CV-535-ST)
(District of Utah)
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, Chief Judge, EBEL, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Alex Verikokidis, a Utah state prisoner, seeks a certificate of appealability
(COA) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253(c) to challenge the district courts
dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as time-barred under 28
U.S.C. 2244(d). We conclude that
Verikokidiss petition is time-barred, deny a
COA, and dismiss.
The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument

pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and
judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The Court generally disfavors the citation of
orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the
terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
*
On October 26, 1987, Verikokidis was convicted of raping and sodomizing

his thirteen-year-old stepdaughter, but he fled to Greece before he was sentenced
by the state court. Approximately seven years later, on September 22, 1994, he
was arrested in Utah and sentenced to two consecutive minimum mandatory
prison terms of ten years to life. After the Utah Supreme Court affirmed
Verikokidiss conviction on October 4, 1996, he filed a federal habeas petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 on November 15, 1996. That petition was dismissed
without prejudice on February 25, 1997.
Verikokidis then filed a petition for state post-conviction relief on July 11,
1997, which was dismissed by the state district court on January 15, 1998. The
dismissal was affirmed by the Utah Court of Appeals, and the Utah Supreme
Court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari on January 13, 1999. During the
appeal of his state post-conviction petition, Verikokidis filed another state
petition for extraordinary relief. That petition was dismissed with prejudice on
October 26, 1998, and the dismissal was not appealed. A second federal habeas
petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 was filed on July 10, 2000, and was
dismissed by the district court as time-barred on August 30, 2001.
Pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(AEDPA), prisoners generally have one year from the date on which their
convictions become final to petition for federal habeas corpus relief.
-2-
28 U.S.C.
2244(d)(1). A conviction becomes final by the conclusion of direct review or

the expiration of the time for seeking such review. 2244(d)(1)(A).
In his application for a COA and opening brief, Verikokidis argues that
applying the AEDPA period of limitation to his case violates the Ex Post Facto
Clause of the United States Constitution
enactment of AEDPA.
because he was convicted prior to the
The Ex Post Facto Clause is only applicable when a law
retrospectively alters the definition of criminal conduct or increases the

punishment for the crime. See Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 441 (1997). The
application of AEDPA to Verikokidiss petition does not implicate either of these
problems. Because he filed his second petition for habeas corpus relief after the
enactment of AEDPA, the AEDPA period of limitation applies to his case.
Williams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 420, 429 (2000).
Verikokidis further argues that the loss of trial transcript, loss of trial
attorney and a subsequent hired attorney by untimely death delayed the filing of
this habeas petition. Because he is proceeding pro se, we liberally construe his
argument as a claim that the one-year period of limitation should be equitably
tolled. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (allowing pro se
complaints to be construed liberally). The one-year period of limitation is subject
to equitable tolling in extraordinary circumstances. See Miller v. Marr, 141 F.3d
1
U.S. Const. art. I, 10, cl. 1.

-3-
976, 978 (10th Cir. 1998). If Verikokidiss failure to file his petition in a timely
manner was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control, equitable
tolling would be available. Marsh v. Soares , 223 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th Cir.
2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1194 (2001); see also Calderon v. United States
Dist. Court, 163 F.3d 530, 541 (9th Cir. 1998). All of the rare and exceptional
circumstances that Verikokidis points to occurred between his conviction and
sentencing. There was a seven-year delay between these two events caused by
Verikokidiss fugitive status.
As the Supreme Court of Utah noted in one of
Verikokidiss appeals,
Although it is true that defendants flight did not directly cause the
loss of the records, his lengthy absence greatly increased the risk and
indeed the likelihood that records would be lost or destroyed. That
risk, given human nature and the vagaries of document storage,
increased steadily with the passage of time. Defendants flight,
therefore, indirectly resulted in the impossibility of appellate review.
State v. Verikokidis , 925 P.2d 1255, 1257 (Utah 1996). Verikokidiss action
contributed to the circumstances that he now claims have limited his ability to file
a habeas petition in a timely manner, and we conclude that he is not entitled to
equitable tolling.
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed his conviction on October 4, 1996.
Because he did not file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States
Supreme Court, his conviction became final ninety days later, on January 2, 1997,
after the time for filing a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court ha[d]
-4-
passed. Rhine v. Boone , 182 F.3d 1153, 1155 (10th Cir. 1999);
see also Locke
v. Saffle , 237 F.3d 1269, 1273 (10th Cir. 2001).

After his conviction became final,
Verikokidis filed for state post-
conviction relief. This petition was pending in the Utah state courts from July 11,
1997, to January 13, 1999. Because the period of limitation is tolled for the time
during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other
collateral review . . . is pending, 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(2)
, the period of limitation
was tolled from July 11, 1997, to January 13, 1999. On January 14, 1999, he had
175 remaining days to file his 2254 petition, so his petition was due by July 7,
1999. The petition, however, was not filed until July 10, 2000, which was over
one year too late. We therefore conclude that Verikokidiss 2254 petition is
time-barred.
The application for a COA is
DENIED and this matter is
DISMISSED .
Verikokidis has also submitted a motion for a new trial, a motion requesting a
D.N.A. test, and a motion for submit for decision. All three of these motions are
DENIED .
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-5-

Verikokidis v. Galetka, 10th Cir. (2002)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Verikokidis v. Galetka, 10th Cir. (2002)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Verikokidis v. Galetka, 10th Cir. (2002)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

HENRY GALETKA, Warden, Draper

Verikokidiss petition is time-barred, deny a

COA, and dismiss.

The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument

On October 26, 1987, Verikokidis was convicted of raping and sodomizing

2244(d)(1). A conviction becomes final by the conclusion of direct review or

because he was convicted prior to the

The Ex Post Facto Clause is only applicable when a law

retrospectively alters the definition of criminal conduct or increases the

U.S. Const. art. I, 10, cl. 1.

As the Supreme Court of Utah noted in one of

see also Locke

v. Saffle , 237 F.3d 1269, 1273 (10th Cir. 2001).

Verikokidis filed for state post-

, the period of limitation

DENIED and this matter is

You might also like