Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02420/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02420-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vernon Lee Pugh
Appellant
State of Minnesota
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2420

___________

Vernon Lee Pugh, *

*

Petitioner-Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Minnesota.

State of Minnesota, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Respondent-Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 13, 2010

Filed: June 8, 2010

___________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Vernon Lee Pugh filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 challenging his state convictions on two counts of first degree criminal sexual

conduct in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.342 subd. 1(a) and subd. 1(h)(iii). The

district court1

 denied relief, and Pugh appeals. We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction.

Appellate Case: 09-2420 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2010 Entry ID: 3672054
-2-

Pugh was convicted in Minnesota district court of sexually abusing his

stepdaughter beginning the day before her twelfth birthday. In his state court appeal

Pugh argued that cumulative error deprived him of a fair trial. He alleged that the trial

court erred by (a) permitting an expert to testify before the jury that in his opinion the

girl had been abused, and (b) admitting testimony about a prior assault by Pugh. He

also appealed an upward departure at sentencing. 

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but remanded for

resentencing in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and Taylor v.

State, 670 N.W.2d 584 (Minn. 2003). See State v. Pugh, No. A04-663, 2005 WL

1019023 (Minn. Ct. App. May 3, 2005). Both parties appealed. The Minnesota

Supreme Court denied Pugh relief but stayed the sentencing appeal pending resolution

of similar issues in some other cases. 

While his sentence was still on appeal, Pugh filed a pro se habeas corpus

petition in the federal district court. The state moved to dismiss the petition for

containing unexhausted claims. See O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842

(1999); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). After the Minnesota Supreme Court remanded Pugh's

case to the trial court for resentencing, the federal district court issued an order

permitting Pugh to amend his habeas petition to address only non Blakely claims. The

district court subsequently denied relief to Pugh in respect to his convictions, and

Pugh appeals.

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) requires a party to file a notice of appeal within thirty

days after the challenged judgment is entered, and the rule applies to habeas petitions.

Browder v. Dir., Dep't of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 265 n.9 (1978); see also Porchia v.

Norris, 251 F.3d 1196, 1197 (8th Cir. 2001). Here, the judgment was entered in the

Appellate Case: 09-2420 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2010 Entry ID: 3672054
2

The district court evidently construed Pugh's pro se submission as both a notice

of appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4 and an application for a certificate of appealability

under Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A).

-3-

district court on December 19, 2008, but Pugh did not submit a notice of appeal2

 until

February 3, 2009. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) allows a party to move the district court to

extend the time to file a notice of appeal if (a) he moves no more than thirty days after

the original thirty day deadline has passed, and (b) he shows good cause. Pugh did

not move for an extension of time, however, and an untimely notice of appeal cannot

substitute for such a motion. Campbell v. White, 721 F.2d 644, 645-46 (8th Cir.

1983).

Pugh does not dispute that his notice of appeal was untimely filed. Instead, he

submitted an affidavit with his appeal describing his difficulties as a prisoner with

limited access to the law library and notary services. The state has moved to strike

Pugh's affidavit because it was not submitted to the district court and is therefore

outside the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a). While we recognize that a prisoner like

Pugh has certain restrictions, he has not complied with Rule 4's time limits which are

"mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder, 434 U.S. at 264 (quotation omitted).

Accordingly, we dismiss Pugh's appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny the

state's motion to strike as moot. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2420 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/08/2010 Entry ID: 3672054