Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_20-cv-00522/USCOURTS-ared-4_20-cv-00522-0/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 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

SHARVELT MISTER PETITIONER 

ADC #120997 

v. 4:20-cv-00522-BRW-JJV 

STATE OF ARKANSAS and 

WENDY KELLEY, Director, 

Arkansas Department of Correction1

 RESPONDENTS 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

INSTRUCTIONS 

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge Billy 

Roy Wilson. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections 

should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection 

is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your 

objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United 

States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and 

recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely 

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 

 

1 Pursuant to Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 

Courts, the respondent should be named as the state officer who has custody of the petitioner. 

Therefore, Dexter Payne, Director of the Arkansas Division of Correction, is the appropriately 

named respondent, and the Clerk is directed to amend the docket to substitute him as the 

respondent. See Ark. Code Ann. § 12-27-101(a)(1) (establishing the Division of Correction to 

“assume the custody, control, and management of the state penitentiary” and “provide for the 

custody, treatment, rehabilitation, and restoration of adult offenders”). 

Case 4:20-cv-00522-BRW Document 2 Filed 05/28/20 Page 1 of 6
2 

 If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or 

additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at 

the same time that you file your written objections, include the following: 

 1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate. 

 2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was not 

offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

 3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form 

of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial 

evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing. 

 From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional 

evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to: 

Clerk, United States District Court 

Eastern District of Arkansas 

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 

DISPOSITION 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 Petitioner Sharvelt Mister, an inmate at the Varner Unit of the Arkansas Division of 

Correction, brings this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 

No. 1.) He claims he was detained without probable cause, which deprived the trial court of 

subject-matter jurisdiction and renders his convictions void. (Id. at 16-31.) He appears to 

challenge his convictions in three related cases, all arising in the Circuit Court of Sebastian County, 

Arkansas: (1) CR-2010-1319, in which he was convicted of one count of delivery of cocaine and 

sentenced to forty years’ imprisonment on August 15, 2011; (2) CR-2010-1320, in which he was 

convicted of one count of delivery of cocaine and sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment 

Case 4:20-cv-00522-BRW Document 2 Filed 05/28/20 Page 2 of 6
3 

on August 18, 2011; and (3) the revocation of his suspended sentences in several prior cases, for 

which he was sentenced to a total of fifty-seven years’ imprisonment on April 26, 2011. (Id. at 

63, 67, 71.) 

 I have conducted a preliminary review of Mr. Mister’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 

Based on that review, I recommend the Petition be dismissed as time-barred. 

II. ANALYSIS 

 Mr. Mister’s Petition is untimely based upon the one-year period of limitation imposed by 

the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and 

(2) set forth a one-year period of limitation for a petition for writ of habeas corpus: 

(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The 

limitation period shall run from the latest of -- 

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct 

review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; 

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by 

State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is 

removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action; 

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially 

recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized 

by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on 

collateral review; or 

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented 

could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 

(2) 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. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)-(2). 

Case 4:20-cv-00522-BRW Document 2 Filed 05/28/20 Page 3 of 6
4 

 In this case, the one-year limitation period began to run on “the date on which the 

judgment[s] 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). Mr. Mister appealed each conviction to the 

Arkansas Court of Appeals, and all were affirmed. See Mister v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 49 (CR2010-1320); Mister v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 536 (CR-2010-1319); Mister v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 

375 (revocation matter). The judgments became final on February 18, 2013, October 15, 2012, 

and June 18, 2012, respectively – the deadlines for filing petitions for rehearing or review of the 

decisions of the Arkansas Court of Appeals. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 2-3(a) (a petition for rehearing 

shall be filed within eighteen calendar days from the date of decision); Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 2-4(a) (a 

petition for review must be filed within eighteen calendar days from the date of decision); Ark. R. 

App. P. – Crim. 17 (when a filing deadline under the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of 

Appeals falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the deadline shall be extended to the next 

business day). 

 From my review of state court records, any statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2) would be 

insufficient to make the Petition timely. Mr. Mister filed petitions for post-conviction relief 

pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 in CR-2010-1320 and in the revocation 

matter. In CR-2010-1320, the petition was filed on April 19, 2013, and the Arkansas Supreme 

Court affirmed the trial court’s denial on October 30, 2014; thus, it was pending for approximately 

eighteen months. See Mister v. State, 2014 Ark. 446. In the revocation matter, the petition was 

filed on August 16, 2012, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial on 

October 30, 2014; thus, it was pending for slightly more than two years. See Mister v. State, 2014 

Ark. 445, 446 S.W.3d 624; Mister v. State, CR-13-294, http://caseinfo.arcourts.gov. Mr. Mister 

also filed a state habeas petition on July 17, 2018. See Mister v. State, 40CV-18-108, 

Case 4:20-cv-00522-BRW Document 2 Filed 05/28/20 Page 4 of 6
5 

http://caseinfo.arcourts.gov. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s denial of 

this petition on June 6, 2019, so it was pending for less than one year. See Mister v. State, 2019 

Ark. 187, 575 S.W.3d 410. Taking these excluded periods together, Mr. Mister’s Petition, filed 

on May 18, 2020, is still too late to challenge judgments that became final in 2012 and 2013. 

 Moreover, a careful review of the Petition fails to show any support for equitable tolling. 

Equitable tolling is only appropriate when a petitioner shows (1) he has been pursuing his rights 

diligently and (2) some extraordinary circumstance stood in the way of his filing. Holland v. 

Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010). Mr. Mister has not made either showing. 

 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, “[i]f it plainly appears from the 

petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the 

judge must dismiss the petition.” Because it plainly appears that Mr. Mister’s Petition is untimely, 

dismissal is appropriate. If Mr. Mister has information to show he is entitled to either statutory or 

equitable tolling, he should so state in his objections to this recommendation. 

III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

 Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a district court “must 

issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A 

certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). No such showing has been made here, 

and no certificate of appealability should issue. 

IV. CONCLUSION

 IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that: 

 1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) be DISMISSED and the 

requested relief be DENIED. 

Case 4:20-cv-00522-BRW Document 2 Filed 05/28/20 Page 5 of 6
6 

 2. No certificate of appealability be issued. 

 DATED this 28th day of May 2020. 

 ____________________________________ 

 JOE J. VOLPE 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:20-cv-00522-BRW Document 2 Filed 05/28/20 Page 6 of 6