UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Charles Carr

v. Civil No. 06-cv-380-JD

Bruce W. Cattell, Warden,

New Hampshire State Prison

O R D E R

Before the Court for preliminary review is Charles Carr’s

petition for a writ of habeas corpus (document no. 1) filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“§ 2254

Rule”) (requiring initial review to determine whether the

petition is facially valid). As discussed herein, I find that

Carr has sufficiently demonstrated exhaustion to allow the

petition to proceed at this time. 

Background

Charles Carr was convicted, after a jury trial, of

kidnapping and three counts of aggravated felonious sexual

assault on October 29, 2002. He was sentenced to 26-52 years at

the New Hampshire State Prison. On December 19, 2002, Carr plead

guilty to a separate set of kidnapping and sexual assault charges

Case 1:06-cv-00380-JD Document 2 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 1 of 5

Carr v. NH State Prison, Warden Doc. 2

Dockets.Justia.com
1The seven claims identified in this Order will be

considered to be the claims raised in the habeas petition for all

purposes. If the petitioner objects to the identification of the

claims herein, he must do so by properly moving to amend his

petition.

2

and was given a concurrent 26-52 year sentence. No appeal was

taken of the jury’s verdict, although Carr alleges that he had

instructed his attorney to file an appeal, and believed that an

appeal was being pursued on his behalf.

On August 12, 2004, Carr filed a motion to vacate his

conviction and sentence on the first set of charges and a motion

to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his sentence on the second

set of charges in the trial court. The grounds raised and

litigated in those motions were all based on Carr’s allegation

that trial counsel was ineffective. The motions were denied on

October 3, 2005. Carr filed a notice of appeal in the New

Hampshire Supreme Court. The New Hampshire Supreme Court

declined to accept the appeal on December 29, 2005. 

 Through counsel, Carr presents the following claims in his

petition before this Court, all of which he alleges were

initially presented to the state courts for consideration:1

1. Trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to file

an appeal despite petitioner’s request that he do so;

Case 1:06-cv-00380-JD Document 2 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 2 of 5
3

2. Trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to 

either object to the seating of a juror who knew the 

prosecutor socially or failed to utilize a peremptory 

challenge to remove the juror from the petitioner’s 

jury;

3. Trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to call

the state’s criminalist to testify that no DNA evidence

was found on any of the complainant’s clothing and 

because counsel failed to engage an independent DNA 

expert;

4. Trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to 

investigate petitioner’s alibi defense and instead 

chose to present a consent defense over petitioner’s 

objection;

 5. Trial counsel was ineffective when he prevented 

petitioner from testifying on his own behalf when 

petitioner wished to testify;

6. Trial counsel was ineffective because he coerced 

petitioner to plead guilty against petitioner’s wishes;

7. Trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to 

pursue a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds;

Petitioner appears in this Court and raises these claims in

his petition through counsel. Although specific documentation

demonstrating exhaustion has not been provided to this Court,

counsel’s representations implicitly state that these issues were

fully exhausted in the state courts. For that reason, I will

direct that the petition be served on the respondent and I will 

Case 1:06-cv-00380-JD Document 2 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 3 of 5
2I note that the apparent delay between the finalization of

Carr’s conviction and the filing of any post-conviction pleading

in the state court may present significant questions as to the

timeliness of this petition which may need to be addressed in

order for the petitioner to successfully pursue his claims in

this Court. 

4

require that the respondent answer in accordance with the § 2254

Rules.2 

Accordingly, I direct that Carr’s petition be served on the

Respondent. See § 2254 Rule 4. The Respondent shall file an

answer or other pleading in response to the allegations made

therein. See id. (requiring reviewing judge to order a response

to the petition). The Clerk’s office is directed to serve the

New Hampshire Office of the Attorney General, as provided in the

Agreement On Acceptance Of Service, copies of this Order and the

habeas petition (document no. 1). Respondent shall answer or

otherwise plead within thirty (30) days of the date of this

Order. The answer shall comply with the requirements of § 2254

Rule 5 (setting forth contents of the answer). 

Upon receipt of the response, the Court will determine

whether a hearing is warranted. See § 2254 Rule 8 (providing

circumstances under which a hearing is appropriate). 

Petitioner is referred to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, which requires

that every pleading, written motion, notice, and similar paper,

Case 1:06-cv-00380-JD Document 2 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 4 of 5
5

after the petition, shall be served on all parties. Such service

is to be made by mailing the material to the parties’ attorneys. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 31, 2006

cc: Paul J. Haley, Esq. 

Case 1:06-cv-00380-JD Document 2 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 5 of 5