Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03288/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03288-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pierre P. Lewis
Appellant
Larry Norris
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3288

___________

Pierre P. Lewis, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas *

Department of Correction, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 16, 2006

Filed: July 7, 2006

___________

Before BYE, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

BYE, Circuit Judge.

This appeal raises the question whether the federal one-year statute of

limitations for filing a habeas petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), should be tolled during

the eighteen-month period in which Arkansas allows a prisoner to file a "belated

appeal" of the denial of state court post-conviction relief under Arkansas Criminal

Appellate Rule 2(e). Thrice before we have alluded to this issue, but for various

reasons have not yet directly resolved it. See Watts v. Norris, 356 F.3d 937, 942 (8th

Cir. 2004); Wright v. Norris, 299 F.3d 926, 928 (8th Cir. 2002); Mills v. Norris, 187

Appellate Case: 05-3288 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2006 Entry ID: 2065648
1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

2

The Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

F.3d 881, 884 n.4 (8th Cir. 1999). This case makes a fourth time, as we affirm the

district court's1

 dismissal of Pierre P. Lewis's habeas petition on an alternative ground.

I

On October 4, 2002, Lewis pleaded guilty to capital murder in Arkansas state

court and was sentenced to life in prison. Because he entered an unconditional plea

of guilty, he was not permitted to file a direct appeal. See Ark. R. App. P. – Crim.

1(a) ("Except as provided by A. R. Cr. P. 24.3(b) [authorizing conditional guilty pleas]

there shall be no appeal from a plea of guilty or nolo contendere."). Lewis did,

however, file several motions for post-conviction relief. On February 26, 2003, 145

days after his guilty plea and conviction, he filed his first motion for post-conviction

relief in state court – a motion to vacate the judgment. On August 21, 2003, he filed

three additional pleadings: 1) a petition for reduction of his sentence; 2) a pleading

entitled "Arkansas Post-Conviction Remedies;" and 3) a state habeas corpus petition.

The state trial court addressed all of these motions and petitions together and denied

them, finding "each of them is utterly frivolous and without merit." Lewis had thirty

days to appeal the denial of the trial court's order denying post-conviction relief, see

Ark. R. App. P. – Crim. 2(a)(4), but he did not.

On October 26, 2004, more than two years following his guilty plea and

conviction, Lewis filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court.

The state responded to the petition arguing, in part, the petition was time-barred under

the federal one-year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The matter was

referred to a magistrate judge2

 who prepared a report and recommendation (R&R)

Appellate Case: 05-3288 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2006 Entry ID: 2065648
-3-

suggesting the petition be dismissed as untimely. The magistrate judge assumed

without deciding Lewis's post-convictions motions were "properly filed" and therefore

tolled the one-year statute of limitations during the time they were pending. See 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Even with such assumption, however, the magistrate judge

determined Lewis's petition was still untimely by at least a month.

Lewis, acting pro se, filed a one-page objection to the R&R arguing he was

within the limitations period because his state habeas petition was still pending when

the one-year period would have otherwise expired. He did not, however, explain how

such a fact rendered his federal petition timely. The district court entered an order

adopting the magistrate judge's R&R and dismissing the federal habeas petition as

untimely. After Lewis filed a pro se notice of appeal, which the district court

construed as a certificate of appealability (COA), the district court granted a COA on

the grounds that appellate review of a district court's interpretation of the federal

statute of limitations is de novo review.

Notably, Lewis never argued in the district court the one-year statute of

limitations should be tolled because of the eighteen-month period in which he could

have filed a "belated appeal" of the denial of his post-conviction motions under

Arkansas Criminal Appellate Rule 2(e). However, his appointed appellate counsel

argued for the first time on appeal the one-year statute of limitations should be tolled

because of Rule 2(e). In response, the state addressed the merits of such argument

instead of contending the argument was waived. In the alternative, the state asserted

Lewis's post-convictions motions were not "properly-filed" within the meaning of 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), and therefore did not toll the one-year period, rendering the

petition time-barred on that ground.

Appellate Case: 05-3288 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/07/2006 Entry ID: 2065648
-4-

II

Lewis asks us to determine whether the one-year period for filing a federal

habeas petition should be tolled during the eighteen months a petitioner could file a

belated appeal under Arkansas Criminal Appellate Rule 2(e). As noted above,

however, Lewis did not raise this issue in the district court, and thus it is arguably

waived. On appeal, however, the state did not contend in its brief the issue was

waived and instead addressed it on the merits. Arguably, therefore, the state waived

its claim of Lewis having waived his claim.

Whether waived or not, we decline at this time to determine how Arkansas's

belated appeal provisions interact with the federal statute of limitations. Instead, we

focus on the state's alternative argument that Lewis's state court motions for postconviction relief were not "properly filed." Although the district court assumed the

motions were properly filed – presumably because the state trial court addressed the

motions on their merits – the Supreme Court has since instructed federal courts to

determine independently whether state court proceedings are timely, even if the state

courts treat them as such. See Evans v. Chavis, 126 S.Ct. 846, 852 (2006). We have

little doubt the district court would not have assumed the post-convictions motions

were properly filed if the Supreme Court's decision had been made before the district

court's decision, because the R&R noted:

Under Arkansas law, regardless of the label given by a defendant, any

motion to withdraw a plea filed after entry of judgment will be treated as

one for post-conviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37. Mims v. State,

__ S.W.3d __, 2004 WL 2823348 (Ark. Sup. Ct. Dec. 9, 2004). Rule 37

petitions must be filed within ninety days of entry of judgment on a

guilty plea. Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c). Although the state court did not

find any of Petitioner's motions to be untimely, they clearly were filed

more than ninety days after entry of his plea.

Appellate Case: 05-3288 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/07/2006 Entry ID: 2065648
-5-

Add. at 6. Section 2244(d)(2)'s reference to "properly filed" state court proceedings

includes "conditions to filing" such as "the time limits upon its delivery[.]" Artuz v.

Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000). Because Lewis's motions for post-conviction relief

were not filed within the requisite ninety days allowed by Rule 37 of the Arkansas

Rules of Criminal Procedure, they were not "properly filed" within the meaning of 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), and therefore did not toll the federal statute of limitations.

There remains the habeas petition Lewis filed in state court. The state argues

the state habeas petition also did not toll the federal statute because it was not filed in

"the court and office in which it must be filed." See Artuz, 534 U.S. at 8 (indicating

another condition to a "properly filed" state court proceeding is that it be filed in the

proper court). Lewis filed his habeas petition in Mississippi County Circuit Court, the

same court where he entered his guilty plea. At the time, however, Lewis was

incarcerated at the Varner Unit in Grady, Arkansas, which is in Lincoln County.

Under Arkansas law, only circuit courts in counties where habeas petitioners are

incarcerated have personal jurisdiction to order a prisoner's release. See Mackey v.

Lockhart, 819 S.W.2d 702, 703 (Ark. 1991).

Lewis acknowledges only a state court in Lincoln County could order his

release, but contends the state habeas petition was nevertheless properly filed because

the Mississippi County Circuit Court had subject matter jurisdiction to grant the

petition. See id. at 703 (citing previous Arkansas cases which distinguish between the

subject matter jurisdiction to grant a habeas petition (which every state court has) and

the personal jurisdiction to grant relief by ordering a prisoner's release (which only

a court in the county of incarceration has)). We disagree the Mississippi County

court's general subject matter jurisdiction over habeas petitions was enough to render

the habeas petition "properly filed" under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). 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

Appellate Case: 05-3288 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/07/2006 Entry ID: 2065648
-6-

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. 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 650697at *1 (Ark. Mar. 16, 2006) (same); Watts v. State, No. 05-686, 2006 WL

563633 at *1 (Ark. Mar. 9, 2006) (same). As a consequence, we conclude the state

habeas petition Lewis filed in Mississippi County was not "properly filed" under 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) and therefore did not toll the federal statute of limitations.

III

We decline to address the question whether Arkansas's belated appeal

provisions might toll the one-year statute of limitations for filing habeas petitions, and

instead affirm the district court's dismissal of Lewis's habeas petition on the alternative

ground that none of Lewis's state court post-conviction proceedings were "properly

filed."

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3288 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/07/2006 Entry ID: 2065648