Lomax v. Warden, 3:25-cv-00464

Bobby A. Lomax pleaded guilty in 1995 to dealing cocaine in Marion County, Indiana, and received a 6-year sentence to run concurrently with another conviction.
He did not appeal his conviction and completed his sentence prior to 2001, when he was subsequently convicted of murder and found to be a habitual offender in the murder case, not the 1995 drug case.
In 2023, nearly 28 years later, Lomax filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel related to habitual offender status in the 1995 case; state courts found he was never sentenced as a habitual offender in that case.
Lomax’s federal habeas petition was filed in 2025, challenging the 1995 conviction, arguing he is being held beyond his sentence.
The court reviewed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and Rule 4, finding Lomax was not "in custody" under the 1995 judgment and the petition was untimely by decades under AEDPA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Custody for 1995 conviction	Lomax claims he is still in custody for 1995 case	Lomax is serving time for a different case	Not "in custody" under the 1995 conviction
Existence of habitual offender	Counsel wrongly advised plea to habitual offender	No habitual offender finding in 1995 case	No habitual offender enhancement to challenge
Timeliness under AEDPA	States delay was due to court's handling	Petition filed decades after deadline	Petition is untimely under § 2244(d)
Equitable tolling	Court delays and unique circumstances argued	Petitioner had no valid extraordinary event	No basis for equitable tolling under the facts

Lackawanna Cty. Dist. Att’y v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394 ("in custody" requirement for habeas corpus petitions)
Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (finality of sentence and "in custody" requirement for habeas corpus)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (standards for equitable tolling of AEDPA deadlines)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (certificate of appealability standards)