Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02020/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02020-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Maples
Respondent
Conzuella Terrell
Petitioner

Document Text:

wEsiEf iltdit}fqtfr 'f*"*o*

rN THE I.INITED srArES DI$TRICT cor-tni FlLHll

wEsrERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL [' 7 2006

CONZUELLA TERRELL

ITORT SM]TH DIVISION

Civil No. 06-2020

. CHB|SRJOHNSOI{,CLtHK

BYt-t: DEPUTY oLrRK

PETITIONER

RESPONDENT

JOHN MAPLES, Warden, McPhcrson Unit,

Arkansas Dcpartment of Coffcction

conzuella Terrell, a petitioner in the Arkansas Dcpaftment of correction (ADC), Iiled a

petition for habeas oorprrs telicfunder 28 U.S.C. $ 2?54, representerl bytetained counsel (Doc. #l)'

Responderrt Maplcs responded that the petition is baned by thc statute of limitations and/or the

doctrine of procedural dcfault, and Tenell filcd areplyto address thcse matters (Docs.4, 8). The

parties also arldresscd the issue of equitablc tolling i lettet briefs. (See Atts. "A," "8"' and "C")

DISCUSSION

Rqrrescnted by retairred attorney Daniel shue, Tcrrcll and two co-del'endants, Mary Hiang

and Marlon Batcs, pled guilty in the crawford county circuit court to a reduccd charge of

conspiracy to possess cocairre with intent to deliver. On Dccember 20, 2002, thc judgment and

commitment order was entered sentencing cach to 20 years in the ADC with 10 yeats suspended.

On January 15, 2003, Teffell and Hiarrg filed a post-trial motion in the circuit coutt to sct

aside their guilty pleas pursuimto Rulc 33.3 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure' They

werc representerl by a ncw attomey. see Rohinson v. ly'orrui, 60 F.3d 457 (8'n Cir. 1995)' cert'

denied, 517 U.S. 1l l5 (1996) (because post-trial motions represent a critical stage of thc criminal

Case 2:06-cv-02020-JLH Document 8 Filed 07/07/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
undcr a contlict of interest in represcnting all defendants and that tlrey entered flreir guilty pleas

under dutess.

The circuit court heard arguffcnts in the matter on April 2, zoo3, and entered an order

denying the motion on September 9,2003. Tcffell filed a rroticc of appeal on April 21,2003'and

an amended notice of appeal on ootober 7,2003, to include thc september 9,2003, order.

ln an opinion dated February 9, 2005, the Arkansas Court ofAppcals held that Tetrcll failed

to file a timely notico of appeal frorn denial of the Rule 33.3 motion. The coutt cxplained that

Tcgell's post-trial motion was deemcd denied on the 30'r' day after it was filcd since the citcuit cout't

failed to mlc on it, as ptovided by Rule 33.3(c) and Ark R' App. P. - Crim'Z(b)(l)' Thus' the

deemed denial was on Fcbruary 14, 2003, and the notice of appeal should havc been filed on or

beforc March 16, 2003. The courl concluded it was without jurisdiotion to consider the appcal.

Hiang v.,ftdtd, -S.W.3d -, 89 Atk App. 285 (2005) (Rcsp.'s Ex' B).

Tenell did not filc a petition firr post-conviotion teliefunder Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rulcs

of Criminal Procedure. Suoh a petition is to be filed within 90 days ofjudgmcnt after aguiltyplea

if no appeal is takcn or within 60 days of the appellant mandate' Ark. R. Crim. P' 37(2Xc)'

Tenell filed thc instant actiorl on Fcbruary 7,2006. Tcrcll claims that Shue labored undcr

a oonflict ofinterest, thus violating her right to the effeotive assistance ofcounsel'

The State contends that the petition should be dismissod hecause itwas filed outside ofthe

one-year limitatiorr period of the Anti-Teruorism and F.ffectivc Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). 28

U.S.C. $ 2244 (d). The relevant portion of the statutc provides:

-2-

Case 2:06-cv-02020-JLH Document 8 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
(dxl )

the datc on whioh the impeclimcnt to filing an

application created hy State action in violation ofthe

Constitution ot laws of the United States is removed,

if the applicant was prevented from filing by such

State achon;

the date on whichthe constitutional right asserted was

initially recognized by the Supreme Court, ifthe right

has beel newly recognized by the Supreme Court and

made rettoactively applicable to cases on collateral

revrew; or

(D) the date on which thc factual predicatc offlre claim or

claims presented could have been discovered through

thc cxercise of due diligence'

(2) The time during which a properly filed application fot state post-cotrviction

or other collateral review with respect to the perlinent judgrnent or claim is

penrling shall not hc counted toward any period of limitation under this

subsection.

Tenell clairns that her appeal was pcnding in the Arkansas Cornt ofAppeals hcginning on

Octobcr 7,2003, whcn the noticc ofappeal was fltlcd and remaincd pending until February 9' 2005'

when the court issuecl an order disnrissing the appeal on proceclural grounds Terrcll argues that her

pctitiou in this courl filed on February 7, 2006, is timelybccause itwas filed within one year of thc

date thc judgment hecame final by the announcement ofthe appcllate decision'

I

I

I

I

I

A 1-year period of limitation shall ap{ly to an application for a writ o flhabeas

corpus by a pcrson iu crrstody pursua+t to thejud$nent ofa State court. The

limitation period shall run frorn the lftcst of -

I

(A) the datc on whioh the judgmbnt became final by thc

conclusion ofdirection review or thc cxpiration oflthe

time for seekirrg such review;

(B)

(c)

-J]-

Case 2:06-cv-02020-JLH Document 8 Filed 07/07/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
I disagree. Under (d)(l )(a) ahovc, Tcruell's conviotion was final on March l6, 2003, when

thc time for filing an appcal from the Rulo 33.3 post-trial motion expired. Becausc Tcnell did not

filc a proper notice ofappcal by the tlue date, the appellate court had no judsdiction to consitler the

appeal. Thereforc, the petitiou irr this court was due on or befote March 16,2004. Terrell's pctition

was not filed until February 7, 2006, ovcr two years latet. Bccause Tenell did flot lilc a postconviction petition undet Rule 37 ofthe Arkansas Rules of Criminal Ptocedure, (dXlX2) does not

apply. Tcrrell's petition is thus untimely and subjecto dismissal under the statutc of limitations.

Further, the parties agree that equitable tolling would flot apply to this oase'

CONC]I}SION

Bascd on the ahove, I recommend that the instant petition be dismissed as barrcd by the

statutc of limitations.l The parties have ten days from recelpt of this report and

recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U'S.C. $ 636(bXl)' The

failure to file timely objcctions may result in waivcr of the right to appeal questions of fact.

The petftioner is reminded that ohjections must be both timely and specific to trigget de novo

review by the district court'

DATED this 7th day of .Iuly 2006.

/s/Beverlv Stiteqlones

HON. BEVERLY STITES JONFf

LINITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDCE

1. "A petition may be summarily dismissed ifthe record clearly indicates that the petitioner's claims

are either barred from review orwithout mcrit." Toneyv. Gummon,79F.3d 693,696(8"'Cir. 1996)

{citation omitted).

Case 2:06-cv-02020-JLH Document 8 Filed 07/07/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>