Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_10-cv-00453/USCOURTS-almd-3_10-cv-00453-1/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)

---

1

The evidentiary materials filed by Respondents establish that Petitioner was represented by counsel

at the time of his 1986 conviction and sentencing. (See Doc. No. 9, Exh. A.) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

 ____________________________

SILAS MARTIN, #145 609 *

Petitioner, *

v. * 3:10-CV-453-TMH

 (WO) 

TROY KING, et al., *

Respondents. *

 ____________________________

ORDER

This cause is before the court on a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief

filed by Silas Martin, a state inmate, on May 18, 2010. In this petition, Petitioner seeks to

challenge his conviction for third degree escape entered against him by the Circuit Court for

Lee County, Alabama, on November 6, 1986. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to a five

year term of imprisonment for this conviction on December 15, 1986.1

 No direct appeal was

undertaken by the petitioner. (Doc. No.9.) Thus, Petitioner’s escape conviction became

final by operation of law on April 27, 1997. See Wilcox v. Florida Department of

Corrections, 158 F.3d 1209, 1211 (11th Cir. 1998) 

Pursuant to the orders of this court, Respondents filed an answer and supplemental

answers in response to the instant petition. In their supplemental answer filed October 12,

2010, Respondents argue that the sentence imposed upon Petitioner for his 1986 conviction

Case 3:10-cv-00453-TMH-SRW Document 20 Filed 10/15/10 Page 1 of 4
2

Subsection (d) was added by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (the

“AEDPA”). This Act became effective on April 24, 1996.

2

expired prior to the filing of this federal action and thus, Petitioner does not meet the “in

custody” requirements for habeas review. (Doc. No. 19.) Respondents also argue that the

instant habeas petition is barred by the one-year limitation period applicable to 28 U.S.C. §

2254 petitions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).2

 (Doc. No. 9.) 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), the United States District Courts have jurisdiction

to entertain petitions for habeas relief only from persons who are “in custody in violation of

the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” In order for this court to have

jurisdiction over Petitioner’s habeas petition, he must have been “ ‘in custody’ under the

conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition [was] filed.” Maleng v. Cook, 490

U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989), 490 U.S. at 490-91. In Maleng, the Court held that a habeas

petitioner does not remain in custody under a conviction “after the sentence imposed for it

has fully expired,” even if there is “the possibility that the prior conviction will be used to

enhance the sentences imposed for any subsequent crimes of which [petitioner] is convicted.”

Id . at 492 (“We have never held ... that a habeas petitioner may be ‘in custody’ under a

conviction when the sentence imposed for that conviction has fully expired at the time his

petition is filed.”) (emphasis in original). See also Birotte v. Secretary for Dept. of

Corrections, 236 Fed. Appx. 577, 578 (11th Cir. 2007) (“the mere possibility that the prior

conviction will be used to enhance a sentence imposed for any subsequent crime is not

enough to render him ‘in custody.’ ”). 

Case 3:10-cv-00453-TMH-SRW Document 20 Filed 10/15/10 Page 2 of 4
3

Even if Petitioner’s subsequent state sentence was enhanced by his prior 1986 conviction, this

assertion no longer provides an avenue of relief as the law is now clear that an inmate who failed to pursue

available remedies to challenge prior convictions or challenged such convictions unsuccessfully may not

collaterally attack the expired prior convictions through a § 2254 petition challenging the enhanced sentence.

Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 121 S.Ct. 1567, 149 L.Ed. 2d 608 (2001);

Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374, 121 S.Ct. 1578, 149 L.Ed.2d 590 (2001). The only exception to this

rule is “for § 2254 petitions that challenge an enhanced sentence on the basis that the prior conviction used

to enhance the sentence was obtained where there was a failure to appoint counsel in violation of the Sixth

Amendment . . .” Lackawanna, supra. This exception is not applicable in this case as the pleadings and

evidentiary materials before the court establish that Petitioner was represented by counsel during the criminal

proceedings related to his third degree escape conviction before the Circuit Court for Lee County. 

3

Petitioner was convicted of third degree escape by the Circuit Court for Lee County,

Alabama on November 6, 1986. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment and

completed service of this sentence on July 18, 1988. (Doc. No. 19, Exh. R.) Petitioner is

presently serving a twenty-five year sentence for his conviction for second degree sodomy

entered against him on October 30, 2007 by the Circuit Court for Lee County, Alabama.

Petitioner is not challenging his sodomy conviction in the present habeas petition. (Doc. No

13.)3

In light of the foregoing, it appears that Petitioner is not “in custody” for purposes of

challenging his 1986 third degree escape conviction. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that on or before November 5, 2010 Petitioner shall show cause why this

case should not be dismissed as he has failed to satisfy the "in custody" requirement

necessary to allow a habeas attack on his 1986 third degree escape conviction entered

against him by the Circuit Court for Lee County, Alabama. 

Case 3:10-cv-00453-TMH-SRW Document 20 Filed 10/15/10 Page 3 of 4
4

DONE, this 15th day of October 2010.

 /s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:10-cv-00453-TMH-SRW Document 20 Filed 10/15/10 Page 4 of 4