Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00006/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00006-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wendy Kelley
Defendant
Joseph Stephens
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

JOSEPH L. STEPHENS PETITIONER 

ADC #094967 

VS. 5:16CV00006 JM/JTR 

WENDY KELLEY, Director, 

Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT 

 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

 The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been 

sent to United States District Judge James Moody, Jr. You may file written 

objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections 

must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and 

(2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of the entry of 

this Recommendation. The failure to timely file objections may result in waiver of 

the right to appeal questions of fact. 

 Mail any objections to: 

 Clerk, United States District Court 

 Eastern District of Arkansas 

 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 

 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

Case 5:16-cv-00006-JM Document 10 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 8
2 

I. Background

 Pending before the Court is a § 2254 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 

filed by Petitioner, Joseph L. Stephens (“Stephens”). Doc. 1. Before addressing 

Stephen’s habeas claims, the Court will review the procedural history of the case in 

state court. 

 On January 28, 2015, Stephens appeared, with counsel, in the Circuit Court 

of Pulaski County, Arkansas, and, pursuant to a negotiated plea, pleaded guilty to 

one count of aggravated robbery. In exchange for his plea, the prosecutor agreed 

to nolle pross the four remaining counts.1

 State of Arkansas v. Joseph Stephens, 

Pulaski County Circuit Court Case No. C-2013-4088 (“state criminal case”).2

 

 On February 2, 2015, Stephens was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment, 

with 6 years suspended. He also received 443 days jail credit. 3 The Sentencing 

Order provided that the 25 years sentence was to run “concurrent” with the 

sentence Stephens was already serving. Doc. 6-2 at 3; Doc. 6-4 at 4. 

 1

 These charges included: theft of property; possession of firearms by certain persons; 

theft by receiving; and battery in the third degree. Doc. 6-2. 

2

 Circuit Judge Herbert Wright, Jr. presided. Stephens was represented by public 

defender Jessica Duncan. A copy of the transcript of the change of plea hearing is attached as 

Exhibit C to Respondent’s Response. Doc. 6-4. 

3

 The Sentencing Order reflects that because of his negotiated plea, Stephens received a 

net departure of 372 months (31 years) from the recommended guideline sentence of 600 months 

(50 years). Doc. 6-2. Thus, Stephens received a significant benefit, in the form of a reduced 

sentence, in exchange for his guilty plea. 

Case 5:16-cv-00006-JM Document 10 Filed 09/28/16 Page 2 of 8
3 

 On March 11, 2015, Stephens filed a Petition to Reduce his Sentence (the 

“sentence reduction motion”). He requested a reduction of his sentence to clarify 

the concurrent nature of the sentence; to “reduce the 70%”4

 in order to allow him 

to qualify for programs while in prison and to be eligible for good time; and a 

suspension of 10 years or more to give him “a chance.” Doc. 6-3. As of the date 

of this Recommended Disposition, the trial court docket indicates that no formal 

ruling was made on the sentence reduction motion.5

 As a matter of law, that 

motion was deemed denied because it was not resolved within thirty days of the 

filing date.6

 Stephens did not attempt to appeal the denial of his sentence reduction 

motion.7

 Because Stephens entered an unconditional guilty plea, he was not 

 4

 Presumably, Stephens is referring to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-618, which provides that 

any prisoner convicted of certain offenses, including aggravated robbery, is not eligible for 

parole or community correction transfer until he serves 70% of his sentence. 

5

 The Court has accessed and reviewed the docket electronically in Stephens’ Pulaski 

County Circuit criminal case. 

 

6

 Under Arkansas procedural rules, a post-trial criminal motion is deemed denied if it is 

not resolved within thirty days. Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.3 (post-trial motion for relief “shall be 

deemed denied as of the 30th day”). 

 7

 To the extent that motion challenged the validity and legality of the sentence itself, it 

was appealable. See Hewitt v. State, 362 Ark. 369, 208 S.W.3d 185, 186 (2005) (per curiam) 

(the appeal of a post-trial motion challenging the validity and legality of the sentence is one of 

the permitted exceptions to the general rule prohibiting an appeal from a guilty plea). 

Case 5:16-cv-00006-JM Document 10 Filed 09/28/16 Page 3 of 8
4 

entitled to file a direct appeal.8

 Stephens failed to file a Rule 37 petition. See Ark. 

R. Crim. P. 37.1. 

On January 11, 2016, Stephens initiated this federal habeas action. Doc. 2. 

In his Petition,9

 he argues that: (1) his lawyer was ineffective for conspiring with 

the prosecutor, failing to visit or communicate with him before his plea, and 

participating in denying him a right to a fair and impartial trial; (2) he was denied 

due process and equal protection because his conviction was the result of a 

conspiracy that was rooted in discrimination based on his race, his economic 

status, and his record of prior felonies, all of which rendered his plea involuntary; 

(3) his plea was tainted by police misconduct, including the denial of medical 

treatment and his Miranda rights; and (4) he was denied a speedy trial in violation 

of Ark. R. Crim. P. 28.3. 

 Respondent argues that all of Stephens’ habeas claims are procedurally 

defaulted. Doc. 6. Stephens has filed a Reply. Doc. 8. Thus, the issues are joined 

and ripe for resolution. 

 For the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that the Petition for 

a Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied, and the case dismissed, with prejudice. 

 

 8 See Ark. R. App. P. – Crim 1(a) (a criminal defendant has no right to an appeal from an 

unconditional guilty plea). 

9

 The Court construes the Petition liberally. See Jones v. Jerrison, 20 F.3d 848, 853 (8th

Cir. 1994). 

Case 5:16-cv-00006-JM Document 10 Filed 09/28/16 Page 4 of 8
5 

II. Discussion 

A habeas petitioner must first “fairly present” his claims in state court before 

seeking § 2254 relief in federal court. Murphy v. King, 652 F.3d 845-848-49 (8th

Cir. 2011); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) (“An application for a writ of habeas corpus 

... shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the 

remedies available in the courts of the State”). By exhausting all available state 

court remedies, a habeas petitioner gives the State that convicted him an 

“‘opportunity to pass upon and correct’ alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal 

rights.” Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (per curiam). 

When a petitioner fails to fully exhaust his claims in state court and the time 

for doing so has expired, his claims are procedurally defaulted. Coleman v. 

Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731-32 (1991). When a procedural default occurs, 

federal habeas review of the claim is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate 

“cause” for the default and “actual prejudice” as a result of the alleged violation of 

federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider his claim will result in a 

“fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 750. 

Stephens acknowledges that he failed to seek Rule 37 relief. However, he 

contends the Court should construe his sentence reduction motion as a Rule 37 

petition. Doc. 8 at 2. For multiple reasons, Stephens’ filing a sentence reduction 

Case 5:16-cv-00006-JM Document 10 Filed 09/28/16 Page 5 of 8
6 

motion, seeking relief under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111, cannot substitute for or 

excuse his failure to file a Rule 37 petition. 

First, allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and other alleged 

constitutional violations “are not cognizable” under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111. 

Williams v. State, 2016 Ark. 16, at 3, 479 S.W.3d 544, 545-546 (affirming denial 

of relief under § 16-90-111 and explaining that relief under the statute is only 

warranted when the sentence is illegal on its face, such as outside the statutory 

range for the offense of conviction). 

Second, under Arkansas law, Stephens was required to pursue his 

constitutional and other challenges to his guilty plea in a timely Rule 37 petition. 

Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315, 317, 219 S.W.3d 123 (Ark. 2005) (challenges to 

guilty plea proceedings can be brought only in a timely filed Rule 37 petition for 

post-conviction relief). 

Finally, Stephens’ sentence reduction motion fails to include any of the 

claims he is now asserting in his federal habeas Petition. See Perry v. Kemna, 356 

F.3d 880, 886 (8th Cir. 2004) (“To avoid a procedural default, a habeas petitioner 

must ‘present the same facts and legal theories to the state court that he later 

presents to the federal courts.’”). Thus, even if Arkansas law permitted his 

Case 5:16-cv-00006-JM Document 10 Filed 09/28/16 Page 6 of 8
7 

sentence reduction motion to be construed as a Rule 37 petition, it would not cure 

the default.10 

 Stephens makes no effort to establish cause for his procedural default. He 

asserts the Arkansas courts are “racist, unjust & unfair” and that they “hide under 

color of state and federal law.” Doc. 2 at 5. In his Reply, Stephens argues that he 

was disenfranchised because of his race, but he fails to offer any specifics or to 

relate it to a specific violation of a constitutional right in connection with his state 

court conviction. Such generalized, conclusory and sweeping allegations fail to 

establish “cause” sufficient to overcome his default.11 Nor can Stephens’ pro se

status and any unfamiliarity with the law or procedural matters establish the 

necessary “cause.” See Smittie v. Lockhart, 843 F.2d 295, 298 (8th Cir. 1988). 

 10 Because Stephens failed to file a Rule 37 petition, the narrow equitable exception to 

procedural default recognized in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012) does not apply. See, 

e.g., Anderson v. Clarke, 2014 WL 1203032, *5 (E.D. Va. March 24, 2014) (“Martinez does not 

apply when the defendant fails to initiate any state court collateral review proceeding 

whatsoever”); Anderson v. Koster, 2012 WL 1898781, *9 (W.D. Mo. 2012) (“Martinez is 

inapposite because, here, the petitioner himself is at fault for not filing a pro se [postconviction] 

motion in the first place.”). 

11 Cause requires a showing of some objective factor, external to the petitioner’s defense 

and not fairly attributable to him, impeding him from constructing or raising his claims in state 

court or complying with the state’s procedural rules. Coleman, 501 U.S. at 753. If no cause has 

been shown, the prejudice element need not be addressed. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 602 

(1991). Stephens does not allege actual innocence as is necessary to invoke the “fundamental 

miscarriage of justice” exception to the cause-prejudice requirement. See Murray v. Carrier, 477 

U.S. 478, 496 (1986) (where constitutional violation “has probably resulted in the conviction of 

one who is actually innocent, a federal court may grant the writ even in the absence of a showing 

of cause for the procedural default.”). 

Case 5:16-cv-00006-JM Document 10 Filed 09/28/16 Page 7 of 8
8 

 The record is undisputed that Stephens has never presented any of the 

alleged federal constitutional claims asserted in his § 2241 Petition to the state 

court for resolution. Thus, his federal habeas claims are procedurally barred. 

III. Conclusion

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT the Petition for a Writ of 

Habeas Corpus be DENIED and this habeas case be DISMISSED, WITH 

PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT a Certificate of 

Appealability be DENIED pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 

2254 Cases. 

 Dated this 28th day of September, 2016. 

 

 ____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:16-cv-00006-JM Document 10 Filed 09/28/16 Page 8 of 8