Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04117/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04117-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
State of Iowa
Appellee
Henry L. Whitfield
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4117

___________

Henry L. Whitfield, *

*

Petitioner-Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

State of Iowa, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Respondent-Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 13, 2005

Filed: September 19, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, LAY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Henry L. Whitfield, who was convicted of first-degree kidnaping, appeals the

district court’s1

 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Whitfield contends

that the district court erred in concluding that he has failed to exhaust his state court

remedies. Whitfield acknowledges his claim is procedurally barred in state court

because he did not bring it within the three-year statute of limitations under Iowa’s

postconviction relief statute. See Iowa Code § 822.3. He also concedes that his

failure to timely bring his postconviction action in state court bars habeas review

Appellate Case: 04-4117 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/19/2005 Entry ID: 1953189
-2-

unless he can “prove cause and prejudice for the default.” Holt v. Bowersox, 191 F.3d

970, 974 (8th Cir. 1999). He argues that his mental illness excuses the default and

that he is therefore entitled to have his petition reviewed on the merits by the federal

courts. The district court dismissed Whitfield’s petition without prejudice on the

grounds that he had not obtained a state court ruling regarding whether his mental

status excused the procedural default of his claim under Iowa’s postconviction

statute. Because Whitfield “may still have an avenue of relief left in state court,” the

district court concluded he had not exhausted the remedies available in state court.

We affirm.

When considering an appeal of a district court’s habeas ruling, we review the

district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. 

Hall v. Luebbers, 296 F.3d 685, 692 (8th Cir. 2002). In order to obtain federal habeas

corpus review a petitioner must exhaust the remedies available in state court. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). A petitioner “shall not be deemed to have exhausted the

remedies available in the courts of the State . . . if he has the right under the law of

the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(c).

Iowa Code § 822.3 provides that applications for postconviction relief “must

be filed within three years from the date the [petitioner’s] conviction . . . is final.”

Resolution of the appeal at hand rests on whether Iowa’s three-year limitation is

absolute or whether it may be equitably tolled by a showing that the petitioner failed

to bring a timely postconviction claim due to mental illness. Whitfield argues that the

time-bar in the Iowa statute may not be equitably tolled, and that he has therefore

exhausted his state court remedies. He asserts, however, that the Antiterrorism and

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) allows for equitable tolling. See

Baker v. Norris, 321 F.3d 769, 771 (8th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, he argues that his

delay in bringing his postconviction petition should be excused and that his habeas

petition should be reviewed on the merits. 

Appellate Case: 04-4117 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/19/2005 Entry ID: 1953189
-3-

The Government replies that “no Iowa case has held that a mental deficiency

is not the sort of ‘fact’ that, if shown, would be insufficient to avoid or equitably toll

Iowa’s postconviction statute of limitations.” Upon reviewing the relevant case law

cited by both parties, we are unwilling to make the decisive determination that the

Iowa postconviction statute of limitations may not be equitably tolled upon a showing

that the petitioner’s failure to bring a petition was excused by mental illness.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Whitfield’s petition for habeas

relief on the grounds that Whitfield has not exhausted his state court remedies as

required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4117 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/19/2005 Entry ID: 1953189