Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_06-cv-00091/USCOURTS-ared-5_06-cv-00091-0/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

BRUNSON ROBERTS PETITIONER

vs. Civil Case No. 5:06CV00091 HLJ

LARRY NORRIS, Director, 

Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United

States District Court Judge William R. Wilson, 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 eleven (11) 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 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

Case 5:06-cv-00091-BRW Document 20 Filed 11/14/06 Page 1 of 10
2

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 or other nontestimonial 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 402

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

DISPOSITION

Now before the court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Brunson Roberts, an inmate of the

Arkansas Department of Correction. Petitioner was convicted by a

jury on February 12, 2003, of possession of cocaine, and he

received a sentence of fourteen years imprisonment (Respondent’s

Exhibit A). His attorney filed a no-merit brief on direct appeal

(Respondent’s Exhibit B) pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

Case 5:06-cv-00091-BRW Document 20 Filed 11/14/06 Page 2 of 10
1 The court pointed out that habeas corpus relief is

available in Arkansas only “if the commitment was invalid on its

face or if the committing court lacked jurisdiction” (Respondent’s

Exhibit M, p. 2). It then found most of Petitioner’s claims were

based on alleged trial errors and that they had been raised on

direct appeal and rejected by the Court of Appeals. Id. at 3.

3

738 (1967), and Petitioner filed a pro se brief (Respondent’s

Exhibit C). The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction

on June 30, 2004 (Respondent’s Exhibit E). On July 12, 2004,

Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Arkansas Supreme

Court (Respondent’s Exhibit F), which the court denied on October

14, 2004 (Respondent’s Exhibit H). On September 23, 2004, he filed

a petition pursuant to Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal

Procedure for post-conviction relief in circuit court (Respondent’s

Exhibit I), which the trial court denied on September 28, 2004,

because his direct appeal was still pending in the form of his

petition for review (Respondent’s Exhibit J). Petitioner

apparently appealed the dismissal, but failed to file an

appellant’s brief and the Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed his

appeal on February 10, 2005 (Respondent’s Exhibit K). On June 3,

2005, he filed a state petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant

to Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-103 (Respondent’s Exhibit L). The circuit

court denied relief on the merits1 on July 27, 2005 (Respondent’s

Exhibit M). 

In the present petition, Petitioner raises the following

grounds for relief:

Case 5:06-cv-00091-BRW Document 20 Filed 11/14/06 Page 3 of 10
4

1. His conviction was obtained through the use of

evidence gained pursuant to an unconstitutional search

and seizure;

2. His conviction was obtained through the use of

evidence gained pursuant to an illegal arrest;

3. His conviction was obtained by a violation of his

privilege against self-incrimination when the court

failed to grant a directed verdict on the ground that the

state failed to prove a legal arrest and when the

prosecution withheld the telephone number of Petitioner’s

boss, who could have explained why Petitioner had cash on

his person, and it was these factors that caused

Petitioner to take the stand and incriminate himself;

4. His conviction was obtained by the prosecutor’s

failure to disclose the address and telephone number of

his boss, which would have led to evidence favorable to

the defense;

5. Defense counsel was ineffective because she did not

file any pre-trial motions to discover favorable evidence

and she did not ask to see the arrest warrant when the

arresting officer testified at trial;

6. He was denied his right to appeal when he was denied

a copy of the trial transcript and when his appellate

attorney withdrew from his case and

7. He was denied his constitutional and procedural

rights.

Respondent admits Petitioner has no non-futile state remedies

available, but contends the petition should be dismissed because

the claims have no merit or are procedurally barred and because the

petition is untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). That section

stablishes a one-year limitations period for filing federal habeas

corpus petitions under § 2254, and provides several triggering

dates, one of which is “the date on which the factual predicate of

Case 5:06-cv-00091-BRW Document 20 Filed 11/14/06 Page 4 of 10
5

the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through

the exercise of due diligence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d)(1)(D).

Petitioner alleges in grounds one, two, three and four that

the prosecution withheld information from the defense. Most of

this information related to his arrest and the subsequent

confiscation of evidence used against him at trial, the subject of

grounds one and two. He states he discovered these facts while he

was engaging in discovery in relation to a civil rights lawsuit,

apparently against the prosecutor. He does not state when the

discovery occurred. There is no need to determine if this

allegation would be sufficient to extend the limitations period for

these claims, however, because even if the court were to find these

two claims were timely they would not entitle Petitioner to relief.

The Supreme Court held in Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 482

(1976), that "where the State has provided an opportunity for full

and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner

may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that

evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was

introduced at trial." In Arkansas, criminal defendants may file a

motion to suppress evidence under Rule 16 of the Arkansas Rules of

Criminal Procedure. Petitioner does not contend the procedures set

forth in that rule are inadequate to protect his Fourth Amendment

rights. Thus, this court may not consider grounds one and two, and

there is no need to address whether the discovery of the

Case 5:06-cv-00091-BRW Document 20 Filed 11/14/06 Page 5 of 10
6

information would establish a triggering date for the limitations

period. 

Petitioner also asserts in grounds three and four that the

prosecutor withheld information regarding the telephone number and

address of his boss, who could have explained at trial why

Petitioner had money on him at the time of his arrest. It appears,

however, that the defense discovered this information during trial

(Petition, DE #2,p. 14). Since the discovery of this information

cannot be the triggering date, I find the relevant triggering date

for Petitioner 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). 

“Direct review” includes review by the United States Supreme

Court. Smith v. Bowersox, 159 F.3d 345, 347-48 (8th Cir. 1998),

cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1187 (1999). Thus, a judgment is final when

the United States Supreme Court has issued an opinion rejecting a

petitioner’s direct appeal, or when it denies a petition for a writ

of certiorari or when the time for filing a petition for certiorari

has expired. Id. at 348; Nichols v. Bowersox, 172 F.3d 1068, 1072

(8th Cir. 1999)(en banc) holding a state court judgment becomes

final under § 2244(d)(1)(A) upon expiration of time to file

petition for writ of certiorari). Rule 13.1 of the United States

Supreme Court Rules provides that a petitioner has 90 days from the

entry of judgment by a state court of last resort to file a

Case 5:06-cv-00091-BRW Document 20 Filed 11/14/06 Page 6 of 10
2 For purposes of this opinion, the court will presume

Petitioner placed his petition in the prison mail that same date.

See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988)(under the prison mailbox

rule, a document will be deemed filed on the date the inmate places

it in the prison mail system).

7

petition for a writ of certiorari, or, if the judgment is from a

lower state court, a petitioner has 90 days from the entry of an

order by the court of last resort denying discretionary review.

Under Rule 13.3 of the Supreme Court Rules, the time runs from the

date the judgment or order is entered, not from the date the

mandate issues. 

Here, the Arkansas Supreme Court denied review on October 14,

2004, and Petitioner’s deadline for seeking certiorari was January

12, 2005. Since he did not file a petition for certiorari, his

conviction became final on that date and the one-year limitations

period ended on January 12, 2006. He did not sign his petition,

however, until January 25, 2006.2

Under § 2244(d)(2), the running of the limitations period is

tolled during the time a “properly filed application for State

post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the

pertinent judgment or claim is pending.” A state application for

post-conviction or collateral relief is “‘filed’ as that term is

commonly understood, when it is delivered to, and accepted by, the

appropriate court officer for placement into the official

record,”... and it ”is ‘properly filed’ when its delivery and

acceptance are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules

Case 5:06-cv-00091-BRW Document 20 Filed 11/14/06 Page 7 of 10
8

governing filings.” Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8-9

(2000)(emphasis in original). These laws and rules “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,

... the requisite filing fee,” and any preconditions imposed on

abusive filers or all filers generally. Id. (footnote omitted). 

In the present case, the circuit court found Petitioner’s Rule

37 petition was premature under Ark.R.Crim.P. 37.2(a), and

dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Thus, the Rule 37 petition

was not “properly filed” and it did not toll the running of the

limitations period. 

Petitioner’s state habeas corpus petition was not properly

filed because he filed it in Pulaski County, Arkansas, even though

he was incarcerated in Lincoln County, Arkansas. Petitioner argues

that the trial court addressed the merits of the petition, but the

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held, even where the state

court has addressed the merits of a state habeas petition, that if

the petition was not filed in the county of incarceration, it was

not “properly filed” for purposes of tolling the limitations period

in § 2244(d). Lewis v. Norris, 454 F.3d 778, 781 (8th Cir. 2006).

The Arkansas Supreme Court has summarily dismissed

appeals from trial court denials of state habeas

petitions when prisoners fail to file the petitions in

the county of incarceration on the grounds such petitions

are “properly addressed to the circuit court in the

county in which the petitioner is held in custody [.]”

French v. State, No. CR 05-690, 2006 WL 728804 at *1

(Ark. Mar.23, 2006) (emphasis added); see also Jackson v.

Case 5:06-cv-00091-BRW Document 20 Filed 11/14/06 Page 8 of 10
3

 The Court assumed without deciding that equitable tolling

applies to the statute of limitations in § 2244(d). 

9

State, No. CR 06-151, 2006 WL 1133544 at *1 (Ark. Apr.23,

2006) (summarily dismissing appeal where prisoner filed

it in the wrong county, because “although a circuit court

may have subject-matter jurisdiction to issue the writ,

a court does not have personal jurisdiction to issue and

make returnable before itself a writ of habeas corpus to

release a petitioner held in another county.”); Cooper v.

State, No. CR 05-453, 2006 WL 650697 at *1 (Ark. Mar.16,

2006) (same); Watts v. State, No. 05-686, 2006 WL 563633

at *1 (Ark. Mar.9, 2006) (same)). 

Id. Thus, I find neither of Petitioner’s state court petitions

tolled the running of the limitations period.

A court may apply equitable tolling to a limitations period

where a petitioner has established “two elements: (1) that he has

been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some

extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.” Pace v. Diguglielmo,

 344 U.S. 408, 418 (2005).3 “[E]quitable tolling is appropriate

only in rare cases," Von Eye v. U.S., 92 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir.

1996), “when the ‘principles of equity would make [the] rigid

application [of a limitation period] unfair.’” Miller v. New Jersey

State Dep’t. Of Corrections, 145 F.3d 616, 618 (3rd Cir. 1998). 

The petitioner must show that he or she “exercised

reasonable diligence in investigating and bringing [the]

claims.” Mere excusable neglect is not sufficient.

Id. at 618-19 (citations omitted). C.f Alvarez-Machain v. U.S.,

107 F.3d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 814

(1997)(Equitable tolling appropriate where Federal Tort Claims Act

plaintiff had been incarcerated for over two years in a foreign

Case 5:06-cv-00091-BRW Document 20 Filed 11/14/06 Page 9 of 10
10

country, in complex case in which his life was at stake).

Petitioner has not explained why he did not re-file his Rule 37

petition after the Arkansas Supreme Court denied review, or why he

did not file his state habeas corpus petition in the correct

county. I find he has not established he is entitled to equitable

tolling in this case and therefore I must find this petition is

untimely. In light of the court’s resolution of this issue, there

is no need to address Respondent’s other arguments. Petitioner’s

“Motion to Enter State Habeas Brief that I filed into Court’s

Records” (DE #19) is denied. The document does not contain a stamp

or any other indication that it was filed in state court.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this petition be, and it is

hereby, dismissed with prejudice. The relief prayed for is denied.

SO ORDERED this 14th day of November, 2006.

 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00091-BRW Document 20 Filed 11/14/06 Page 10 of 10