Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00143/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00143-0/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)

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

CRAIG BAKKALA 

ADC # 155500 PLAINTIFF 

vs. CASE NO. 5:16-cv-00143 JMM-JTK 

WENDY KELLEY, Director 

Arkansas Department of Correction DEFENDANT 

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 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: 

Case 5:16-cv-00143-JM Document 9 Filed 07/20/16 Page 1 of 7
2

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 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 

For the reasons explained below, it is recommended Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED with prejudice. 

Background and Procedural History 

 On August 5, 2013, Petitioner, Craig Bakkala, pleaded guilty in the Greene County 

Circuit Court to two counts of rape and one count of distributing, possessing, or viewing sexually 

explicit material involving a child. (DE #7 at Ex. 2) Petitioner was sentenced to concurrent 

terms of 420 months for each of the counts of rape and given a concurrent 240-month suspended 

imposition of sentence for the child pornography count. (Id. at Ex. 1) The prosecutor nolle 

prossed the two counts of second-degree sexual assault and the additional count of viewing child 

pornography as part of the plea agreement. (Id. at Ex. 3) The Amended Sentencing Order in this 

matter was filed on August, 27, 2013. (Id. at Ex. 1) On May 9, 2016, Petitioner filed his petition 

Case 5:16-cv-00143-JM Document 9 Filed 07/20/16 Page 2 of 7
3

for writ of habeas corpus in this Court claiming that his confession was coerced by the police in 

violation of his Fifth Amendment protections as well as ineffective assistance and “coercion” of 

counsel. (DE # 2) On June 3, 2016, Respondent filed her Response to Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus. (DE # 7) In it, she argues the Petitioner’s petition should be denied because his 

claims are time barred and procedurally defaulted. Id. Petitioner filed his Reply to Respondent’s 

response on June 10, 2016, claiming his petition should not be time barred because 28 U.S.C.A § 

2244(d)(2)1 applies in this case. (DE #8) 

 In his petition, the Petitioner states he “attempted” to file a postconviction petition under 

Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 in November 2013 and June 2014 in Greene County 

Circuit Court. (DE #2) The Greene County Circuit Clerk, however, has no record showing that 

the Petitioner filed or ever attempted to file a Rule 37 petition. Petitioner argues that the lack of 

such a record is the result of the circuit court’s refusal to acknowledge his filings rather than his 

failure to file such documentation. (DE # 2 at 2) 

 On September 26, 2014, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the Lee County 

Circuit Court where he is incarcerated. The petition was based on two grounds: (1) ineffective 

assistance of counsel and (2) a coerced confession. (DE #7 at Ex. 4) The circuit court denied the 

petition due to the fact that none of the claims he raised were cognizable in state habeas 

proceedings. (DE #7 at Ex. 5) Petitioner appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court and the 

opinion delivered on May 14, 2015, affirmed the circuit court’s decision and held that appellant’s 

claims for ineffective assistance of counsel, coerced confession, and errors during the plea 

proceedings were not claims cognizable in habeas proceedings; therefore, the Court found that 

                                                            

1

   The federal habeas statute provides for tolling of the one-year limitation period while a “properly filed 

application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is 

pending.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(2). 

Case 5:16-cv-00143-JM Document 9 Filed 07/20/16 Page 3 of 7
4

petitioner had failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a basis for the writ to issue. Bakkala v. 

Hobbs, 2015 Ark. 214 1-3. (per curiam) 

Discussion 

There exists a one-year statute of limitations set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective 

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) for filing an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a 

person in custody pursuant to a state court judgment. 28 U.S.C.A. 2244(d)(1). The statute starts 

running from the date on which the judgment became final. Id. In this case, the Petitioner’s 

Sentencing Order was entered on August 27, 2013. Therefore, the Petitioner had through 

September 26, 2014, to timely file his application. See Camacho v. Hobbs, 774 F.3d 931, 934-35 

(8th Cir. 2015) (holding the AEDPA’s one-year limitation period begins to run from the date on 

which the thirty-day period in which to file an appeal expires, even for a criminal defendant who 

enters an unconditional guilty plea and generally has no right to appeal such plea).2 Petitioner, 

however, did not file this petition until May 9, 2016, and therefore the petition is untimely. 

There is also no reason to believe that equitable tolling would be appropriate. The United 

States Supreme Court has held a petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling of 28 U.S.C.A. 2244(d) 

only if he can show “that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some 

extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.” Holland v. Florida, 

560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010). The burden rests solely on the petitioner to prove the grounds 

warranting equitable tolling and to satisfy the extraordinary circumstance test. Pace v. 

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). Petitioner does not cite any extraordinary 

circumstances which made it impossible for him to file a timely §2254 petition. Within his 

                                                            

2

   On August 2, 2013, Petitioner signed a Plea Statement in which he acknowledged that he understood the 

rights he was giving up by entering his guilty plea. (DE #7 at Ex. 2) Furthermore, the Petitioner acknowledged 

within his statement that he had been fully informed on all matter by his counsel and that he offered his plea of 

guilty “freely and voluntarily and of my own free will and accord.” Id. 

Case 5:16-cv-00143-JM Document 9 Filed 07/20/16 Page 4 of 7
5

petition he states the untimeliness of his petition was partly due to his limited resources and lack 

of legal knowledge. (DE #2) Equitable tolling has been held inappropriate even in the case of 

an unrepresented petitioner alleging a lack of legal knowledge or legal resources, and therefore, 

tolling is certainly even less appropriate where the petitioner was represented by counsel. 

Kreutzer v. Bowersox, 231 F.3d 460, 463 (8th Cir. 2000). See also, Shoemate v. Norris, 390 F.3d 

595, 598 (8th Cir. 2004) (holding that a Petitioner’s misunderstanding of the Arkansas rules, 

statutes, and the time period set forth therein do not justify equitable tolling). The Court, 

therefore, finds equitable tolling of the one-year statute of limitations in section 2244(d)(1) is not 

appropriate in this case. 

Petitioner argues that the one-year statute of limitations for filings his federal habeas 

petition was tolled by 28 U.S.C §2244(d)(2). The habeas statute provides for tolling while a 

“properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the 

pertinent judgment or claim is pending,” however, section 2244(d)(2) does not offer any relief to 

Petitioner. While the Petitioner claims he attempted to file a Rule 37 petition with the Greene 

County Circuit Court numerous times, the circuit clerk does not have any record showing that 

petitioner ever filed or attempted to file a Rule 37 petition. In his Reply, the Petitioner argues the 

lack of any such record is not indicative of him never attempting to do so, but instead, the failure 

of the Greene County Circuit Clerk’s office to file his documentation. (DE #8) Additionally, 

Petitioner attached exhibits to his reply purporting to show his attempts to file for postconviction relief, however, the Certificates of Service for the Rule 37 petitions only state that 

such documentation was sent to the prosecuting attorney for Greene County, Arkansas. Id. 

While the Petitioner states that copies were sent to the Greene County Circuit Clerk, there is 

simply no evidence to support this allegation. Whether or not these petitions were actually sent 

Case 5:16-cv-00143-JM Document 9 Filed 07/20/16 Page 5 of 7
6

by Petitioner or received by the Greene County, Arkansas prosecutor’s office is unknown to this 

Court; however, it is undisputed that there is no record of any Rule 37 filings by the Petitioner in 

the appropriate county. It, therefore, cannot be said that a “properly filed application for State 

post-conviction” relief was filed. The Petitioner is correct that the statute of limitations was 

effectively tolled from September 26, 2014 until May 14, 2015 during the time in which he was 

seeking collateral review through his state habeas petition. The Petitioner’s federal habeas 

petition, however, is still untimely even with the above-referenced period of time being tolled 

because in total more than a year passed before the application was filed with this Court.3

In addition to making a timely filing, a petitioner is required to exhaust all available 

avenues of relief in the state courts before the federal courts will consider a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 

2254(b) & (c). A petitioner “must present his federal claims to the state courts in a timely or 

procedurally correct manner in order to provide the state courts an opportunity to decide the 

merits of those claims.” Kennedy v. Delo, 959 F.2d 112, 115 (8th Cir.1992). Failure to do so will 

result in his claims being barred “unless [he] can demonstrate cause for the default and actual 

prejudice as a result of the violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the 

claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Harris v. Lockhart, 948 F.2d 450, 452 

(8th Cir.1991) (quoting Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 749–50 (1991)). 

Here, the Petitioner did not present his federal claims to the state courts of Arkansas in “a 

timely and procedurally correct manner.” Arguably, Petitioner attempted to pursue his postconviction rights; however, the only logical conclusion this Court can draw is that Petitioner’s 

attempts to file a Rule 37 petition were done so improperly. On two separate occasions in 2014, 

in response to Petitioner’s correspondence concerning his efforts to file a Rule 37 petition, the 

                                                            

3

   There exist no evidence of any filings by the Petitioner or any court proceedings which would effectively 

toll the one-year statute of limitations from September 26, 2013 through September 25, 2014 and May 15, 2015 

through May 8, 2016. 

Case 5:16-cv-00143-JM Document 9 Filed 07/20/16 Page 6 of 7
7

Arkansas Supreme Court advised petitioner that if he was seeking an order to compel the Greene 

County Circuit Clerk to perform a duty, he was required to proceed in the circuit court with an 

appropriate pleading. (DE #8) The Petitioner never followed through with the Arkansas 

Supreme Court’s directive. Petitioner’s failure to do so may be the result of his pro se status or 

lack of legal knowledge, but neither of those excuse his failure to present his federal claims to 

the state court in a procedurally correct manner. This Court finds the Petitioner has not 

demonstrated any excusable cause for the default, and therefore, petitioner’s claims are 

procedurally defaulted. 

Conclusion 

Petitioner’s claims are time barred and procedurally defaulted, and therefore, his petition 

should be denied. Accordingly for the reasons set forth above, it is recommended that 

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED with prejudice. It is further 

recommended that the District Court not issue a certificate of appealability because Petitioner 

has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(1)-(2). 

SO ORDERED this 20th day of July, 2016. 

_______________________________ 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 5:16-cv-00143-JM Document 9 Filed 07/20/16 Page 7 of 7