Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_06-cv-00283/USCOURTS-ared-5_06-cv-00283-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

ROGER DALE CAMPBELL PETITIONER

vs. Civil Case No. 5:06CV00283 HLJ

LARRY NORRIS, Director, 

Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Roger Dale Campbell, an inmate of the Arkansas Department of

Correction, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss. It appears from the

opinion of the Arkansas Supreme Court that Petitioner entered pleas

of nolo contendere on July 25, 2003, to two counts of arson, one

count of residential burglary and one count of domestic battering

in the third degree, he was sentenced that same day to a total of

eight years imprisonment and a judgment and commitment was also

entered that day (Respondent’s Exhibit B, p. 1). An amended

judgment and commitment was filed on September 15, 2003

(Respondent’s Exhibit A). On October 9, 2003, Petitioner filed a

state habeas corpus petition, and on March 17, 2004, he filed a

post-conviction motion under Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of

Criminal Procedure. The trial court dismissed both petitions on

March 9, 2005 (Respondent’s Exhibit B, p. 1). 

In the proceedings before this court, Petitioner raises the

following grounds for relief:

Case 5:06-cv-00283-HLJ Document 14 Filed 08/13/07 Page 1 of 4
2

1. The charging information and the arrest warrant were

defective;

2. He was mentally incompetent at the time of his pleas

because he was on medication and

3. He was denied his right to a speedy trial.

I.

In his Motion to Dismiss, Respondent argues the petition

should be dismissed because it is untimely under 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1), which establishes a one-year limitations period for

filing federal habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The

relevant triggering date in the present case is “the date on which

the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the

expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1)(A); Smith v. Bowersox, 159 F.3d 345, 348 (8th Cir. 1998),

cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1187 (1999). 

In Arkansas, defendants who enter pleas of nolo contendere are

not entitled to a direct appeal, Ark. R.App. P.-Crim. 1, and the

conviction becomes final on the date the judgment is entered.

Shabazz v. Norris, 2007 WL 772578 (E.D. Ark. March 9, 2007). Thus,

Petitioner’s convictions became final the date the original

judgment and commitment was filed, or July 25, 2003, and at that

point his federal habeas corpus petition was due to be filed no

Case 5:06-cv-00283-HLJ Document 14 Filed 08/13/07 Page 2 of 4
1 Respondent states he “assumes, for the purposes of applying

the prison-mailbox rule, see Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988);

28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 3(d), that [Petitioner] also placed it in the

prison mail system on that date.” Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss,

p. 2.

3

later than July 25, 2004. Petitioner did not sign his § 2254

petition until April 11, 2006.1

 

Section 2244(d)(2) provides that the “time during which a

properly filed application for State post-conviction or other

collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim

is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation

under this subsection.” In its order affirming the dismissal of

Petitioner’s state habeas petition and his Rule 37 petition, the

Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with the state court’s finding that

Petitioner had filed his state habeas petition in the wrong county

and it did not have jurisdiction to grant the writ (Respondent’s

Exhibit B, p.2). 

[A]n application is “ properly filed” when its delivery

and acceptance are in compliance with the applicable laws

and rules governing filings. These usually prescribe, for

example, the form of the document, the time limits upon

its delivery, the court and office in which it must be

lodged, and the requisite filing fee.

Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000)(footnote omitted). Because

Petitioner’s state habeas petition was filed in the wrong county,

it was not “properly filed” under § 2244(d)(2). The court further

agreed with the trial court that Petitioner’s Rule 37 petition was

untimely (Respondent’s Exhibit B, p. 2). A state petition that is

Case 5:06-cv-00283-HLJ Document 14 Filed 08/13/07 Page 3 of 4
2 The Court assumed without deciding that equitable tolling

applies to the statute of limitations in § 2244(d). 544 U.S. at

418, n.8. 

4

untimely is not “properly filed” under § 2244(d)(2). Pace v.

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 417 (2005). Because neither of

Petitioner’s state petitions were “properly filed,” they did not

toll the running of the statute of limitations and this § 2254

petition is untimely. Even if the court did not start the statute

running until the dismissal of both state petitions on March 9,

2005, this petition would be untimely, because Petitioner did not

sign it until over a year later. Although given the opportunity,

Petitioner has not explained why he did not file a timely motion,

and therefore he has not shown he is entitled to equitable tolling.

See Pace DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. at 418.2 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss

(DE #6) be, and it is hereby, granted. The petition is dismissed

with prejudice and the relief prayed for is denied. Petitioner’s

Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (DE #3) is denied. 

SO ORDERED this 13th day of August, 2007.

 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00283-HLJ Document 14 Filed 08/13/07 Page 4 of 4