Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00040/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00040-0/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 

DAVID LEE JONES PETITIONER 

ADC #94099 

5:15-cv-00040-JM-JTK 

WENDY KELLEY, Director, RESPONDENT 

Arkansas Department of Correction 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INSTRUCTIONS 

 The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Court 

Judge James M. Moody, Jr. 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. 

 If you are objecting to the recommendations 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 before the District Judge (if such a hearing 

is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

3. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced at the hearing before the District 

Judge in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary 

Case 5:15-cv-00040-JM Document 18 Filed 02/01/16 Page 1 of 6
2 

or other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the hearing before the 

District Judge. 

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

evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge. 

 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 

 

 Petitioner David Jones, an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC”), 

filed this timely petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, after pleading 

nolo contendere to rape. (Doc. No. 2.) For the following reasons, Mr. Jones’s petition should be 

denied as untimely. 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 On August 21, 2009, Mr. Jones pleaded nolo contendere to rape in the Pulaski County, 

Arkansas, Circuit Court. (Doc. No. 15-2 at 9.) He agreed to serve thirty years in the ADC. (Doc. 

No. 15-7 at 1.) On September 1, 2009, the circuit clerk filed the judgment and commitment 

order. (Id.). 

 On April 9, 2014, Mr. Jones filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. (Doc. No. 15-

8.) In it, he argues that his counsel coerced him to plead to this crime. (Id. at 5.) On April 7, 

2015, the Pulaski County Circuit Court denied Mr. Jones’s petition, finding no evidence that Mr. 

Jones’s counsel coerced him into pleading. (Doc. No. 15-9 at 2.) 

 On February 3, 2015, Mr. Jones filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

(Doc. No. 2.) On June 1, 2015, the Director of the ADC (the “Director”) filed a response, asking 

Case 5:15-cv-00040-JM Document 18 Filed 02/01/16 Page 2 of 6
3 

the Court to deny Mr. Jones’s petition. (Doc. No. 15.) On June 9, 2015, Mr. Jones filed a reply 

brief. (Doc. No. 17.) 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 A district court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on 

behalf of a prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (2006). 

The only issue the district court may consider is whether a prisoner is in custody “in violation of 

the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Id. A prisoner must file the petition for 

a writ of habeas corpus within one year after the state court judgment “became final by the 

conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review” unless one of 

the statutory exceptions apply. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2006). While a properly-filed application 

for State post-conviction relief or other collateral review is pending, the time “shall not be 

counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.” Id. at (d)(2). 

 Even when the statutory exceptions do not apply to a petitioner’s claim, the statute of 

limitations for filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus can be tolled for equitable reasons. 

Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 645 (2010). A “petitioner is ‘entitled to equitable tolling’ only 

if he shows ‘(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary 

circumstance stood in his way’ and prevented timely filing.” Id. at 549 (quoting Pace v. 

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005)). 

A tenable actual innocence claim is also not barred by the statute of limitations. 

McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S.Ct 1924, 1928 (2013). To prove actual innocence, a petitioner 

would have to prove that, in light of new evidence, “no juror, acting reasonably, would have 

voted to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 

Case 5:15-cv-00040-JM Document 18 Filed 02/01/16 Page 3 of 6
4 

329 (1995)). The new evidence must be “reliable” and not available at trial through the exercise 

of due diligence. Schlup, 513 U.S. at 324; McQuiggin, 133 S.Ct at 1935. 

III. ANALYSIS 

 In Mr. Jones’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, he alleges ineffective assistance of 

trial counsel for: (1) failing to object to the trial court’s continuing his trial and a formal 

competency determination; (2) failing to object to the trial court’s failure to hold a mental 

evaluation and hearing; (3) failing to obtain evidence of the affirmative defense of not guilty by 

reason of mental disease or defect; (4) failing to seek a continuance while Mr. Jones underwent a 

competency determination; (5) coercing Mr. Jones into pleading guilty while he suffered from an 

undiagnosed mental disease or defect; and (6) failing to investigate the affirmative defense of not 

guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. 

Mr. Jones’s claims are time-barred. The circuit clerk filed the judgment and commitment 

order on September 1, 2009. From that date, Mr. Jones had thirty days to appeal his conviction. 

Camacho v. Hobbs, 774 F.3d 931, 934 (8th Cir. 2015) (citing Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 2(a)(1)). 

After the thirty days, the one year statute of limitations to file a federal habeas petition began 

running. Id. at 935. Therefore, Mr. Jones had until October 1, 2010 to file his petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus. He did not do so until February 3, 2015, making his petition untimely. 

Mr. Jones alleges that the Supreme Court’s decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct 1309 

(2012), excuses his untimeliness. However, this decision only holds that the ineffective 

assistance of counsel for initial-review collateral proceedings may establish cause for a 

prisoner’s procedural default of an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim. Id. at 1315. It 

does not apply to excuse the untimely filing of a federal habeas petition. See Christopher v. 

Hobbs, No. 5:14-cv-00007-BSM, 2014 WL 7399201, at *3 (Dec. 29, 2014) (“Furthermore, 

Case 5:15-cv-00040-JM Document 18 Filed 02/01/16 Page 4 of 6
5 

nothing in Martinez...provides a basis for equitably tolling the one-year limitations period.”). 

Since Mr. Jones does not allege any other reason for the Court to statutorily or equitably toll the 

statute of limitations for his petition, nor does he allege actual innocence, his petition should be 

denied as untimely. 

The fact that Mr. Jones received a ruling on the merits of his fifth claim in the state courts 

within a year of filing the instant petition does not affect the calculation regarding whether he 

filed his claim within the statute of limitations. When calculating the statute of limitations in a 

§ 2254 petition, the federal court must determine which claims are time-barred on a claim-byclaim basis. DeCoteau v. Schweitzer, 774 F.3d 1190, 1192 (8th Cir. 2014). While a petition for a 

writ of coram nobis is a collateral attack on a prisoner’s conviction, United States v. Morgan, 

346 U.S. 502, 512 (1954), the statute of limitations does not start over once a judgment on the 

collateral attack is entered. Instead, it is tolled while the petition is pending before the state court. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). While the fifth claim’s statute of limitations period was arguably tolled 

from April 9, 2014, until April 7, 2015, this period was well after the statute of limitations had 

expired for filing a federal habeas petition.1

 Therefore, all claims in Mr. Jones’s petition should 

be denied as untimely. 

IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

 Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 

District Courts, the Court must determine whether to issue a certificate of appealability in its 

final order. In § 2254 cases, 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)(1)-(2) 

                                                            

1 While the circuit court ruled on the merits of Mr. Jones’s petition for a writ of coram nobis, it likely did not have 

jurisdiction to do so. In Arkansas, a prisoner must move for the Arkansas Supreme Court to reinvest the circuit court 

with jurisdiction to hear a petition for a writ of coram nobis if the petition is filed after final judgment is entered. 

Newman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 61 (Ark. 2009). Here, there is no evidence that Mr. Jones requested that the Arkansas 

Supreme Court reinvest the circuit court with jurisdiction to hear his petition for a writ of coram nobis.  

Case 5:15-cv-00040-JM Document 18 Filed 02/01/16 Page 5 of 6
6 

(2006). The Court finds no issue on which Mr. Jones has made a substantial showing of a denial 

of a constitutional right. Thus, the district court should not issue a certificate of appealability. 

V. CONCLUSION 

 Mr. Jones’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 2) should be denied as 

untimely. The district court should not issue a certificate of appealability. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 _________________________ 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 5:15-cv-00040-JM Document 18 Filed 02/01/16 Page 6 of 6