Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00164/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00164-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wendy Kelley
Defendant
Ronald Robinson
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

RONALD E. ROBINSON )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Case No. 5:15-CV-00164 JLH-JTK

ADC # 108877 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

WENDY KELLEY, Director, 

Arkansas Department of Correction 

 Respondent. 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Instructions 

 The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Court 

Judge J. Leon Holmes. 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: 

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 

Case 5:15-cv-00164-JLH Document 16 Filed 03/01/16 Page 1 of 5
2 

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 

 BEFORE THE COURT is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Ronald 

Robinson on May 21, 2015 (Doc. No. 2). Respondent Wendy Kelley filed a response on 

September 15, 2015 (Doc. No. 12). Petitioner did not file a reply. After reviewing the Parties’ 

briefing and the available evidence, the Court finds that the current action should be 

DISMISSED. 

Background 

 In 2009, The Hot Springs County Circuit Court found Petitioner, Ronald Robinson, guilty 

of two counts of attempted first-degree murder and two counts of first-degree battery. The court 

filed the Amended Judgment and Commitment Order on January 6, 2010, which included an 

enhancement for committing a felony with a firearm. Petitioner received 135 years’ 

imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. On June 30, 2010, Petitioner directly 

appealed his conviction to the Arkansas Court of Appeals, with arguments that the trial court 

erred by 1) denying his request for a continuance, 2) denying his motion for a directed verdict, 3) 

denying the lesser-included instruction on second-degree battery, and 4) failing to exercise 

discretion in running his sentences consecutively. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the 

Case 5:15-cv-00164-JLH Document 16 Filed 03/01/16 Page 2 of 5
3 

conviction on November 17, 2010. Robinson v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 772. 

On February 7, 2011, Petitioner filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to 

Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1, alleging his counsel was ineffective for 1) failing to 

point out that the State failed to offer forensic proof that he fired a weapon in the motion for 

directed verdict, 2) not impeaching witness Jeff Andrew Traylor’s testimony at trial, 3) failing to 

adequately support the motion for a continuance based on the State’s failure to give timely notice 

that it intended to call “Mr. [James] Harris” as a witness, 4) “failing to offer support” for his 

request for a jury instruction on second-degree battery as a lesser-included offense and for not 

“federalizing” the issue to allow for subsequent review of the issue in a habeas-corpus 

proceeding in federal court, and 5) failing to object when the trial court ordered his sentences to 

be served consecutively as recommended by the jury. The Hot Springs Circuit Court denied the 

motion on December 28, 2011 (Doc. Nos. 12-5, 12-6, 12-7). Petitioner subsequently appealed 

that decision to the Arkansas Supreme Court, which affirmed the trial court on June 26, 2014. 

Robinson v. State, 2013 Ark. 46 (per curiam). 

Respondent admits that Petitioner is in her custody and that he had no unexhausted, nonfutile state remedies available to him. Respondent denies, however, that Petitioner is entitled to 

an evidentiary hearing or habeas relief. 

Discussion

Petitioner requests relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 based on the following grounds: 1) 

trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the court’s imposition of consecutive 

sentences, 2) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by virtue of his failure to 

properly move for a directed verdict with the specificity required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(a), 3) 

trial counsel was ineffective for failing to make a meritorious objection to the variance between 

Case 5:15-cv-00164-JLH Document 16 Filed 03/01/16 Page 3 of 5
4 

the charging document and erroneous instructions given to the jury as to the essential elements 

needed to convict one of attempted first-degree murder, and 4) actual innocence. However, the 

merits of these claims will not be addressed because Petitioner’s claims are time-barred.1

Section 2244 requires state habeas petitioners to file their petitions within one year of 

“the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the 

expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Petitioner’s direct 

appeal was denied by the Arkansas Court of Appeals on November 17, 2010. Thus, the 

limitations period began to run December 6, 2010.2 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death 

Penalty Act ‘s (AEDPA) statute of limitation thus began running on December 7, 2010. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(A) (excluding from the time computation the day of the event that triggers the 

time period); Moore v. United States, 173 F.3d 1131, 1133-35 (8th Cir. 1999) (applying Fed. R. 

Cvil. P. 6(a) to AEDPA statute of limitations). The time period was tolled during the pendency 

of Petitioner’s Rule 37 petition, from February 7, 2011 to June 26, 2014. See § 2244(d)(2). On 

 

1

 The Court would note that Petitioner’s third claim is also procedurally-barred because he failed 

to raise it in state court, among other things. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 

(1999) (“[S]tate prisoners must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any 

constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s established appellate review 

process.”); Barrett v. Acevedo, 169 F.3d 1155, 1161 (8th Cir. 1999) (“If a petitioner has not 

presented his habeas corpus claim to the state court, the claim is generally defaulted.”). The 

Court need not address Petitioner’s fourth argument actual innocence because the petition is 

clearly time-barred and because he failed to “present new evidence that affirmatively 

demonstrates that he is innocent of the crime for which he was convicted.” Murphy v. King, 652 

F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Abdi v. Hatch, 450 F.3d 334, 338 (8th Cir. 2006)). 

2

 The Arkansas Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s direct appeal on November 17, 2010. A 

petition to review a decision of the court of appeals “must be filed within 18 calendar days from 

the date of the decision....” Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 2-4(a). When the last day for filing a petition for 

review “falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the time for such action shall be extended 

to the next business day.” Ark. R. App. P. – Crim. R. 17. Eighteen days from November 17 is 

December 5. In 2010, December 5 fell on a Sunday. Because December 5 was a Sunday, the 

time for filing the petition for review was December 6, 2010. 

Case 5:15-cv-00164-JLH Document 16 Filed 03/01/16 Page 4 of 5
5 

June 27, 2014, the statute of limitations resumed running. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(A). 

Accordingly, when Petitioner filed his federal habeas petition on May 21, 2015, more than one 

year had passed, and the statute of limitations had run. 

There is no argument or indication that any of the statutory exceptions to the one-year 

period of limitation apply. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D) (explaining that the limitations 

period will be tolled in situations where the state impeded relief, new constitutional rights were 

created by the Supreme Court, or newly discovered facts underpin the claim). Nor is there any 

reason to believe that equitable tolling would be appropriate. See Kreutzer v. Bowersox, 

231 F.3d 460, 463 (8th Cir. 2000) (“Equitable tolling is proper only when extraordinary 

circumstances beyond a prisoner’s control make it impossible to file a petition on time.”). 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Petitioner’s petition is time-barred. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. No. 2) be, and it is hereby, dismissed, with prejudice. The 

relief prayed for is DENIED. 

Further, the Court will 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 1st day of March, 2016. 

 __________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 5:15-cv-00164-JLH Document 16 Filed 03/01/16 Page 5 of 5