Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05161/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05161-2/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 TINITED STATES DISTRIC'T COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF' ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

CA I'HERYNNE WHYTEFAWN K-ENDRICK

v. Civil No. 05-5 16I

LNRRY NORRIS, Director,

Arkansas Dcpaftment of Correction

PETITIONI,R

RESPONDENT

M

Petitiouor Cather5,nne Whltefawn Kendrick, a prisonet ol' the Arkansas DepartmeTlt ol'

Copection (AI)C), hrings this habeas corpus action under 28 tJ.S.C. $ 2254 challenging revocation

of probation. Respondent Norris rnoves to dismiss the petition on the gtounds it is ban'ed hy

limitations i d subjcct to disrnissal under the doctrinc ofprocedural clefault. Fot ltcr rcsponse, I

tlirectett Kendrick to cornplete aquestionnairc (Doc. l5). I attaoh ttr this report cettaiu docunretrts

Iiorn the Benton Courrty Circuit Court.

DISCUSSION

On October 8,2003, Bcnton County Circuit Court Judge Tom Keith si gned an order directing

the Clerk to i$sue a waxrant to auest Kendrick based on the state'$ petition to revoke probntion in

State 0f Arkansas v. Kentlritk, No. CR 2002-480-l .(Att. A). Kendriok appearcd with counsel

bcfore Judge Keith on Fcbruary 23, 2004, to answcr the state's petition rrnd ahcalingwasohedulcd

for March 29, 2004. (Att. B). On Maroh 18, 2004, Kcndrick signed a statcmcnt stating in pafl that

her attorncy had advised her that she faced 3 to l0 ycars imprisonment and up to a $10,000 linc.

Case 5:05-cv-05161-JLH Document 16 Filed 03/27/06 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
(Resp's F.x. A.). At the rsvooation hearing, probation was revoked and Kenilrick was soutenoed to

l0 ycars in prison, $1,000 fine, and restitution itr the amoutrt of $110L21. (Att. C).

The judgment and comnihnent order was filed on April 5, 2004. (Att. D). The order stated

that on March 18, 2003, Kendnck was sentenced to 3 years supervised probation pursuant to a guilty

plea to the charge oflviolation of thc Arkalsas Hot Chcck Law - fllass C Felony, Ark.Stat.Ann. 5-37-

302 and that at the revocation hearing Kenddck had admittcd thc allcgcd violations and had been

found guilty of violatiorr of'prcbation. The order specificd the violations ofprobation: failure to

repolt as instructed hy the protration officer; failurc to pay fincs, fces, and restitutiou as previously

order by the Court; failurc to report change ofaddress; commission ofthe offenses o[ violation of

the Arkansirs Hot Check Law, Class C Fclony, from March through August 2003 in Benttrn County

and from June 6 through June 13, 2003, in Washington County; and lcaving the state without

pemrission in violatiorr of the probatiotl agrecmcnt.

Attached to the jrLdgment and commitmcnt order was a repoft of cirouln$tance$ preparcd by

the prosccutor and approved and signed by Judge Keith. (Att. E). Thc facts were summarized as

follows: "I)efonrlarrt violated tcrms and conditions ofher probation hy conrmitting ncw fclony hot

chcck of'fcnscs in tluee separate jurisdictions. Delbndant not onlyon state probation with Atkansas

ibr hot cliecks when committcd these offenses but also on federa) prohation at thc time of other

violations." The report oorr(ained a list of potential aggravating antl mitigating factors to be

consideretl. Aggravating factors noted includetl that Kendtick had a prior record ofsimilar offbnscs,

had a serious prior rccord, and had demonstratetl peruistent criminal tnisconduct whilc under

supcrvision. No mitigating factors were noted.

-2-

Case 5:05-cv-05161-JLH Document 16 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
In July, September, and Novcmber 2004, Judge Keith denied Kendtick's ntotions for

altemative public scrvicc work for credit for time spont in cmtody, Ibr fincs in exchange for jail

credit, ald for retluction ofsentcncc. (Atts. F-1, F-2, F-3). The Bentofl Couflty Circuit Court docket

sheet reflects that on Fcbruary 1 1, 2005, Kenrhick fi led a motion for post-conviction reliell (Att.

G). On May 2, 2005, Judge Keith's order was cntcrcd dismissing the petition as untirncly filed.

{,\ft. H).

The instant haboas cdrpus pctition was sigrred Soptonrher 8,2005, and is deerned filed on

that dav urrder the urisou nrailbox rulc. Mcftols v. Bowersox, 172F.3d' 1068, 1072 (B'" Cit. 1999)

(en banc). Ken{rick challengcs the revocation ofprobation by.ludge Keith on the grounds (l ) s}re

tricd her best to comply with probation, this was het first violation, and she shorr'ld havc bceu given

a second clrance, (2) thc State failed to file extradition papcrs or a govemor's warrant which would

allow 5er to bc transported aoros$ $tate linc, and (3) Judge I{eith failed to dircct that Kentlrick hc

served with a warrant.

The State of Arkansas contends that Kendrick's pctition is subjecto disnrissal as barred hy

t6e stirtutc of limitations. 28 U.S.C. $ 2244(d)(l) provides that a $ 2244 motion must be frletl no

latcr thal one year from the latest of (A) thc date on which the judgment becanre final by the

conclusiorr ofdircct review or the expiration ofthe time lot sccking such review; (B) the date on

which the impediment to filing an application oreaterl by State actiou in violation offederal law is

rcmoved, if the applicant was prevfirtcd froni filing by such State action; (C) thc date on which thc

constitutional right assetted was initially tecognized by the suptcrnc court, if the right has been

newly recognizcd hy the Supremc Court and nrade rctroactively applicahle to cases on collateral

review; or (D) the date on which the faotual predicate ofthe claim or claims presentcd could lrave

-3-

Case 5:05-cv-05161-JLH Document 16 Filed 03/27/06 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
beel rliscovered through thc cxcrcisc ofreasonable diligence. Thetimedurirrg which aproperlyfilcd

application lbr statc post-conviction review is pending shall not be courrted toward any period of

limitation. 28 ll.S.C. $ 2244(dX2).

The State o fArkan sas argues that Kcndrick's triggering date for the statule of lifiitations was

whel her conviction became final undcr 28 U.S.C. $ 2244(dXlXA). Thejudgment and comuritment

ordct was filed on April 5,2004, arrd Kendrick took no appeal. Iherefore, the oorrviction bccatnc

final on May 4, 2004, which includes the 30-day appeal timc. .\'ee Ark. R. App' P 2 Kendrick did

nor file her action in this cor.rfi until September 8,2005. Accordingly, if $ 2244(dX1)(A) is ulilizcd,

Kondnck's pctition was untimely filed.

In the questionnairc, Kendrick was asked to respond to thc $tate's contention thal herpctition

was untimely filed. Kendrick statcs that Judge Keith did not actually sentcnce her on March 29,

2004, but, instead, announoed that the case was dismissed and that he would sctrd her to anothet

judgc for sentencing and would suggest 10 years. She adds that shc first receivod the commitmcnt

papers from Judge Keilh on Junc 8, 2004, shortly befote going to prison. These assettions invoke

other possible triggcring datos, $ 2244(dX 1XB) involving a State created impcdiment whiolr prevents

a petitioner ftom liling sooner antl $ 2244 (dXIXD), the date on which the factual predicate dfthc

claims could havc been discovered through the exercise ofreasonablc diligence

Court documents, inclutling the rcvocation ortler, the j[dgmcnt aDd conrmitmcnt order, iurd

thc docket ontries, clcarlyreflecthat Judgc Kcith revoked Kerrdrick's probation and sentcllced her

to l0 ycars on March 29, 2004, contrary to Kcndrick's assettion that the case was dismissed. I lrave

also obtained from the Benton County Circuit Clerk a letter ofJurre 8,2004, that Kendrick wrote to

(lircuit Jg4ge Clingcr who hatl senteflccd her in another casc. (Att. I). In the lettcr, Kendrick states

-4-

Case 5:05-cv-05161-JLH Document 16 Filed 03/27/06 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
thut Judge Kcith cntered his jutlgment on April 5, ?004, sgntcncing her to l0 years in prison and

"apparently" she has bccn scntenced twico for the same chargc. Kcndrick further states that although

hcr attomey Charles Sanrlers told her on May 12, 2004, that Judge Keith had senteuced her kr '10

ycars, this was "wrong" because Judge Keith scnt her to Judge Clinger for sentencing on both cases.

Shc states, "This is all confusing to mel" and asks Ibr cladlication.

I find that, althoLrgh Kcndrick may liave beon oonfu$ed about thc seutence hatrtled down by

Judge Keith, this was not due to any aotion or nonaction by the State and cirrrnot hc attributable to

thc State. Judge Keith was clcar in his findings and orders that hc had revoketl Kendrick's probation

antl sentenced hcr to 10 years. Acoording to Kcndrick's letter, her attomey also made clear in eatly

May 2004 that Kcith had sentenced her to prison. Kendrick's fillute to $asp thc clear directives o1'

court ofllcials and heed the advice ol'her attorney does not invoke a diffcrcnt triggering rlate lbt thc

statute of lirrritations. Further, the faotual basis lbr thc claims were rerdily available at the tinre ol'

thc rcvocation. Thrrs, Kcndrick has lot shown that aflother triggering drrtc ibr the statrrte ol'

limitations applies, Accordingly, her petition herc was untimely file<1, as asscrled by the Statc of

Alkansa$.

I furlher find that Kcndrick's Rule 37 petition did not se,rve to toll thc lirnitations period as

providetl by 28 U.S.C. $ 2244(dX2). A state post-conviction petitioD tlismisscd as untimely is not

"properly liled" so as to toll the limitations period. Pace v' Diguglielmo, --U S -, 125 S'flt'

1807, t8l2 (2005);Wttlkerv, 1y'orris,436F.3d 1026, 1030(B'hCir.2006). Here,Kcndrickliadurrtil

July 5, 2004 (90 days afler entry ofjudgmenl of cotrviction on April 5, ?004) to file rr Rulc 37 postconviction petition in the statc circuit court challenging the validity of the revocation. She filed hcr

petition Febmary 11, 2005, and the petition was dismissed as untimcly. Therefore, thc Rule 37

-5-

Case 5:05-cv-05161-JLH Document 16 Filed 03/27/06 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
pctition was not "timely filed" and cannot serve to toll the lirnitations period. Further, Kendrick's

motions for sentence adjustmeuts did not serve to toll the $tatute of'limitations.

'I'lre doctrine ofequitable tolling applies to $ 2254 petitiofis. Jihad v. Hvass,267 F.3d 803

(B'h Cir. 2001). "Equitablc tolling is proper only when extraordinary oircumstances beyond a

prisoner's corrtrol make it impossiblc to frlc a petition on tirne," irJ. at 805 (quoting Rruetzer v.

Bcrwersox, 23 I F.3d 460, 463 (8'r' Cir. 2000), or when the State prevents the prisonet l"rom morc

tinrely making a claim. Itl. at 807. !-urther, '-[e]quitable tolling should only apply whcrc thc

pctitioncr or tnovant has demonstrated diligence ifl putsuing thc mattcr." U. S, tt, Martin,408 F.3d

I 089, I 095 ( I'h Cir. 2005Xcitation omitted). Moreover, lack o l'legal knowledge by an utuepresented

prisoner does not support equitahle tolling. IJ nitetl Srates v. Mclntosh,332 F.3d 550, 551 (8'r' Llir.

2003Xcitation omitted).

Irr the qucstiomaire, Kendriok states tbat she was told by Judgc J. Scoggs on May 5, 2005,

that Benton County case No. 2002-0480-1 was "no longer active." Howevcr, as sct out above,

Kerrrlrick acknowlcdged in a statenent prior to the tevocntion hcaring that she faced pristrn timc,

Jutlge Keith madc his mlings and orders regartling pdson timc vcry clear in the mattor, arrd Kcndrick

told Judge Clinger qrr June 8, 2004, that her attomey atlvised het in carly May 2004 that Judge Keith

harl ordcred prison tipre. Kendrick also lists post-oonviotion fiotions shc filcd iu an effort ttr show

she was tliligent in pursuing reliefl. Kenddck has not shown, however, that cxtraonlinary

circunst nces prevcntcd her from filing a timely $ 2254 petition in this court. Accortlingly,

Kendrick may not take atlvarrtage of cquitable tolliug to have her untimely petition heard

-6-

Case 5:05-cv-05161-JLH Document 16 Filed 03/27/06 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
CONCLUSTON

Bascd onthe above,I findthat Kendrick's $ 2254 petition is barted bylimilalions and should

bc dismissed with prejudice.r Because rlismissal is warranted onthis gound, I have uot reached thc

state's altcrnative grourrd fot disrnissal baseil on the doctrine of prooodural default.

The parties have tcn days from receipt of this report and recommendEtion in which to

file written objections pursuflnt to 28 U.S.C. $ 636(bxt), The failure to file timely objections

may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact, The psrties are rcminded that

obiections must he both timely and $pecific to trigger de nauo review by the district court'

DATED this 27"' day of March 2006.

/s/Bevetlv Stitcs Jones

HON. BEVERIY STITPS .IONES

I]NITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

l..,Apctitionmayhesummarilydisnrisscdiftherecordclearlyintlicatcsthatthepetitioner'sclaims

are eitier barred from review or withorrt merit." Tonelt vGammon, Tg I'"3d 693' 69fi (8'" Cir'

I 99fr)(citatiorr omitted).

-7-

Case 5:05-cv-05161-JLH Document 16 Filed 03/27/06 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>