Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00003/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00003-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Anthony Antoniello
Plaintiff
Wendy Kelley
Defendant

Document Text:

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

RONALD ANTHONY ANTONIELLO PETITIONER 

ADC # 165855 

V. CASE NO. 5:19-CV-00003-KGB-JTK 

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 Kristine G. Baker. 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. 

Case 5:19-cv-00003-KGB Document 18 Filed 05/30/19 Page 1 of 8
2 

 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 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 

For the reasons explained below, it is recommended that Petitioner’s Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus (DE # 1) be DISMISSED with prejudice and Petitioner’s Motion 

to Stay Habeas Proceedings (DE # 12) be denied as moot. 

Procedural History 

 Petitioner was found guilty by a Miller County Circuit Court jury of thirty counts of 

distributing, possessing, or viewing matter depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a 

child. He was sentenced to a total of 3600 months in the Arkansas Department of 

Case 5:19-cv-00003-KGB Document 18 Filed 05/30/19 Page 2 of 8
3 

Correction. (DE # 16-2 pp. 94-96) The Petitioner filed a direct appeal of the convictions 

arguing that the trial court erred by: (1) admitting evidence of other child pornography for 

which he was not charged; (2) admitting testimony from Petitioner’s former stepdaughter 

about past molestation by Petitioner; and (3) denying his challenge to the State striking two 

African-American jurors under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Antoniello v. 

State, 2018 Ark. App. 105. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions on 

February 7, 2018. Id. Petitioner did not seek post-conviction relief under Arkansas Rule 

of Civil Procedure 37.1, and he has not filed any other post-appeal petitions in state court. 

 On January 4, 2019, Petitioner timely filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (DE 

# 1), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserting the following claims for relief: 

1. The State exercised two peremptory strikes against African American jurors in 

violation of Batson, and his trial counsel was ineffective for not preserving the 

issue for direct appeal; 

2. The jury included no African-American jurors and thus was not a fair crosssection of the community, and his trial counsel was ineffective for not timely 

objecting when the State struck the two African American jurors; 

3. His convictions and sentences violate the double jeopardy clauses of the United 

States and Arkansas constitutions, and his trial counsel was ineffective for not 

objecting to at trial and not raising the issue on appeal; 

4. Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-27-602 is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad 

because it allows multiple charges for each photograph from a “single siege,” 

and trial counsel was ineffective for not raising the issue at trial and on appeal; 

5. His sentence violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and his counsel 

was ineffective for not raising this issue at trial and on appeal; 

6. Counsel was ineffective for not advising Petitioner of his Rule 37.1 remedy, and 

this excuses the procedural default of his claims raised in the habeas petition. 

Case 5:19-cv-00003-KGB Document 18 Filed 05/30/19 Page 3 of 8
4 

Respondent filed her Response on April 23, 2019, and argues that the petition should be 

dismissed because Petitioner’s grounds for relief are procedurally defaulted. (DE # 16) 

 On April 5, 2019, Petitioner filed a Motion to Stay Habeas Proceedings (DE # 12) 

to allow him to proceed back to state court to file a Rule 37.1 petition. Petitioner alleges 

that there has been a new development in Arkansas law that allows him file a “Reams” 

claim under Reams v. State, 2018 Ark. 441, and obtain a ruling on issues that have not yet 

been raised in circuit court. Id. On April 11, 2019, the Respondent filed a response 

opposing the stay and argues that Reams does not authorize the filing of an untimely Rule 

37 petition. (DE # 13) 

Discussion 

Before seeking federal habeas review, a state prisoner must fairly present the 

substance of each claim to each appropriate state court, thereby alerting those courts to the 

federal nature of his claims and giving them an opportunity to pass upon and correct any 

constitutional errors. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004); see also 28 U.S.C. § 

2254(b) and (c). A habeas petitioner who cannot present his federal claims in state court 

due to untimeliness or some other state procedural hurdle meets the technical requirements 

for exhaustion because there are no longer any state remedies that are available to him. 

Grass v. Reitz, 643 F.3d 579, 584 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 

722, 732 (1991)). “However, that petitioner’s procedural default may constitute an 

‘independent and adequate state ground’ barring federal habeas relief absent a showing of 

either cause or prejudice or actual innocence.” Id. (internal citations omitted). “[W]e ask 

Case 5:19-cv-00003-KGB Document 18 Filed 05/30/19 Page 4 of 8
5 

not only whether a prisoner has exhausted his state remedies, but also whether he has 

properly exhausted those remedies, i.e., whether he has fairly presented his claims to the 

state courts.” O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 848 (1999). To meet this fair 

presentation requirement, “state 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.” Id. at 845. “A failure to exhaust remedies properly in 

accordance with state procedure results in procedural default of the prisoner’s claims.” 

Welch v. Lund, 616 F.3d 756, 758 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 848). 

None of the claims that Petitioner now raises in his § 2254 petition were exhausted 

in state court, except for the Batson claim, which was presented to the Arkansas Court of 

Appeals on direct appeal. That court held that “Antoniello did not raise his Batson

challenge until the day of trial, over a week after the jury had been sworn. Because his 

Batson challenge was untimely, he failed to preserve it for review by this court.” 

Antoniello, 2018 Ark. App. 105, at 6. Failure to present claims to the state court in a 

“timely or procedurally correct manner in order to provide the state courts an opportunity 

to decide the merits of those claims” results in a default of those claims, and “federal habeas 

review of the claims is barred unless [he] 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 the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Kennedy v. Delo, 

959 F.2d 112, 115 (8th Cir. 1992) (quoting Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750). Accordingly, 

Petitioner’s claims are all procedurally defaulted unless an exception applies. 

Case 5:19-cv-00003-KGB Document 18 Filed 05/30/19 Page 5 of 8
6 

Petitioner argues that his appellate counsel’s failure to advise him of his Rule 37.1 

remedy excuses the procedural default of his claims because he “did not waive his postconviction procedures.” (DE # 2 p.14) Petitioner, however, does not set forth any legal 

authority to support his argument. There is no obligation in Arkansas that an attorney must 

inform a client about their right to file a Rule 37.1 petition; in fact, the United States 

Supreme Court has held that “it is the petitioner who must bear the burden of a failure to 

follow state procedural rules.” Coleman at 754. Therefore, the procedural default of 

Petitioner’s claims is not excused by his counsel’s alleged failure to inform him about Rule 

37.1. 

Lastly, though the Petitioner acknowledges that he never filed a Rule 37 petition, he 

argues in his Motion to Stay Habeas Proceedings that a new Arkansas Supreme Court 

ruling in Reams v. State, 2018 Ark. 324, provides him an avenue for now presenting his 

Batson and fair-cross-section claims in state court. Petitioner, however, has misinterpreted 

the holding in Reams. In Reams, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that a violation of the 

requirement that the jury be selected by a fair-cross-selection of the community is a 

structural error and therefore cognizable in postconviction proceedings. Id. at 21. 

Regarding the Batson claim, the court held “[b]ecause Reams’s Batson claims were raised 

in his direct appeal and rejected by this court, Rule 37 does not provide an opportunity to 

reargue settled points.” Id. at 14. Neither of these holdings provide the Petitioner with an 

avenue to file an untimely Rule 37 petition. 

First, Reams addressed the issue in the context of a timely-filed Rule 37 petition. 

Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2(c) provides that, “[i]f an appeal was taken of 

Case 5:19-cv-00003-KGB Document 18 Filed 05/30/19 Page 6 of 8
7 

the judgment of conviction, a petition claiming relief under this rule must be filed in the 

circuit court within sixty (60) days of the date the mandate is issued by the appellate court.” 

The mandate issued on February 27, 2018; therefore, the Petitioner had until April 28, 

2018, to file a timely Rule 37 petition. Reams does not give the Petitioner the opportunity 

to file an untimely Rule 37 petition. Second, regarding the Batson claim, the Reams court 

expressly refused to address the argument as a structural error because it had already been 

addressed on direct appeal. The Arkansas Court of Appeals already rejected Petitioner’s 

argument, and Reams does not give the Petitioner a second opportunity to have the claim 

reviewed. Petitioner has no non-futile state remedies available to him, and therefore, all of 

his claims are procedurally defaulted. 

 Certificate of Appealability 

 When entering a final order adverse to the Petitioner, the Court must issue or deny 

a certificate of appealability. Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the 

United States District Court. The Court can issue a certificate of appealability only if 

Petitioner has made a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2). In this case, Petitioner has not provided a basis for issuing a 

certificate of appealability. 

Conclusion 

 Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the instant habeas petition (DE #1) 

be denied and dismissed with prejudice and that a certificate of appealability be denied. 

Furthermore, that Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Habeas Proceedings (DE # 12) be denied as 

moot. 

Case 5:19-cv-00003-KGB Document 18 Filed 05/30/19 Page 7 of 8
8 

 SO ORDERED this 30th day of May, 2019. 

 ___________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

 

Case 5:19-cv-00003-KGB Document 18 Filed 05/30/19 Page 8 of 8