Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00196/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00196-0/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

ERIC C. BURGIE 

ADC #120956 PETITIONER 

VS. 5:16CV000196 BSM/JTR 

 

 

WENDY KELLY, Director, 

Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

INSTRUCTIONS 

 The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States 

District Judge Brian S. Miller. 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 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. 

Case 5:16-cv-00196-BSM Document 3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 1 of 5
2 

I. Background 

 Petitioner, Eric Burgie, has filed a § 2254 Petition for a Writ of Habeas 

Corpus.1 Doc. 2. He asserts various postconviction claims challenging his 2001 

convictions, in Garland County Circuit Court, of capital murder and aggravated 

robbery. 

 Burgie acknowledges that this is his third petition for habeas corpus relief. 

Doc. 2 at 2-3. In Burgie v. Norris, E.D. Ark. No. 5:06CV00205, he originally 

attacked the same convictions. On May 21, 2007, United States District Judge 

Billy Roy Wilson entered an Order and Judgment adopting this Court’s 

Recommended Disposition, dismissing that case with prejudice. Id. at docs. 21 and 

22. 

 On July 25, 2013, Burgie filed a second habeas petition attacking the same 

convictions. Burgie v. Hobbs, E.D. Ark. No. 5:13CV00228. On September 24, 

2013, Chief United States District Judge Brian S. Miller entered an Order and 

Judgment adopting this Court’s Recommended Disposition, dismissing that case as 

successive. Id. at docs. 6 and 7. 

 Burgie initiated this habeas action on June 24, 2016. Doc. 2. Because it is a 

successive habeas petition, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed, 

without prejudice. 

 1

 He has also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Doc. 1. Based on the financial information 

provided, Petitioner qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Case 5:16-cv-00196-BSM Document 3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 2 of 5
3 

II. Discussion 

 A claim presented in a second or successive § 2254 habeas petition must be 

dismissed unless the Petitioner can make a prima facie showing that he has 

satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). However, that determination 

must be made by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, not the United States 

District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)(“Before a second or successive 

application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall 

move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court 

to consider the application”). 

 Burgie argues that this habeas action may proceed without pre-authorization 

from the Eighth Circuit because the factual and legal basis for his claims could not 

have been discovered at the time he filed his first habeas action in 2006.2

 Burgie 

relies on the capital murder statute in effect when he was convicted in 2001, which 

did not enumerate “aggravated robbery” among the predicate statutory offenses 

that supported a capital-felony murder conviction.3 See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-101 

(Repl. 1997). In 2007, the capital-murder statute was amended to include 

“aggravated robbery” among the statutory offenses that supported capital-felony 

 2 See Williams v. Hobbs, 658 F.3d 842, 853 (8th Cir. 2011) (“where a claimant could not have raised a 

[habeas] claim in his first habeas petition because it had not yet arisen, he will be allowed seek a second habeas 

petition [in the District Court] without first obtaining our authorization”). 3

 The capital-murder statute in effect when Burgie was convicted did include simple “robbery,” under Ark. 

Code Ann. § 5-12-102, among the predicate offenses that supported capital-felony murder. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-

10-101(a)(1)(A)(v) (Repl. 1997). 

Case 5:16-cv-00196-BSM Document 3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 3 of 5
4 

murder. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-101(a)(1)(A)(vi) (Supp. 2007). According to 

Burgie, this amendment was an ex post facto violation that rendered his 2001 

convictions unconstitutional. 

 All of the facts and law allegedly supporting Burgie’s argument were known 

or discoverable when he initiated his first habeas action in 2006. Years before 

Burgie was convicted in 2001, clearly established Arkansas case law held that, 

while “aggravated robbery” was not enumerated as a predicate offense in the 

capital-murder statute, it was nonetheless encompassed by the statute’s inclusion of 

“robbery” as a predicate offense. See Nooner v. State, 322 Ark. 87, 907 S.W.2d 

677 (1995); Simpson v. State, 274 Ark. 188, 193, 623 S.W.2d 200, 203 (1981). 

Insofar as Burgie believes that this somehow violated his federal constitutional 

rights, the factual and legal basis for his arguments was available to him when he 

initiated his first habeas action. 

 Burgie’s pending § 2254 habeas petition is the third iteration of his collateral 

attack on his underlying conviction. Thus, to pursue this successive habeas action, 

he must first obtain authorization from the Eighth Circuit, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2244(b)(3)(A). 

Case 5:16-cv-00196-BSM Document 3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 4 of 5
5 

III. Conclusion 

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 

 1. Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (doc. 1) be 

GRANTED. 

 2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 2) be DISMISSED, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, so that Petitioner may seek authorization from the 

Eighth Circuit to file a successive habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 

 Dated this 15th day of July, 2016. 

 

 ____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 5:16-cv-00196-BSM Document 3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 5 of 5