Holt v. Gordy et al
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 7/10/2020. (KAM)
FILED
2020 Jul-10 PM 04:47
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
REGINALD LENOIR HOLT,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
WARDEN CHRISTOPHER GORDY, and )
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
)
STATE OF ALABAMA,
)
)
Respondents.
)
Case No. 4:17-cv-1338-RDP-GMB
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 15, 2020, the Magistrate Judge entered a report recommending that the court
dismiss with prejudice Petitioner Reginald Holt’s untimely petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
(Doc. # 11). The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of their right to file specific written
objections within 14 days. (Doc. # 11). After the court granted Holt’s motions for an extension of
time, Holt filed timely objections on July 6, 2020. (Docs. # 13, 15, 16).
Holt objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that his petition is barred by the statute
of limitations. First, Holt argues that he is actually innocent of first-degree rape under Alabama
Code § 13A-6-61(a)(3) because that statute is unconstitutional. (Doc. # 15 at 1–6). This argument
misses the target because only “factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency,” will overcome a
procedural bar. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623–24 (1998).
Next, Holt argues that he is factually innocent of first-degree rape and that the Etowah
County District Attorney “tricked or misled [him] into signing the explanation of rights and guilty
plea form.” (Doc. 15 # at 6, 8). Holt explains that the prosecutor offered him a “20 year split 5 year
sentence” if he pled guilty to one count of rape. (Doc. # 15 at 7). He claims that this occurred
during a hearing, and that after he “signed the waiver of rights and guilty plea document,” the court
1
suspended the hearing for lunch. (Doc. # 15 at 7). According to Holt, when the hearing resumed,
the prosecutor told him that “he could not get the agreed upon 20 years split 5 years sentence.”
(Doc. # 15 at 7). Holt also alleges that the prosecutor told the court he had six prior felony
convictions even though he has none. (Doc. # 15 at 7).
These allegations challenge the voluntariness of Holt’s guilty plea, but they do not
constitute “new reliable evidence—whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy
eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence”—that was previously unavailable to him to
support his claim that he is actually innocent of the crime itself. Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 324
(1995). Accordingly, Holt has not shown he is actually innocent of the crime, and therefore entitled
to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Thus, he has provided no basis upon which to
conclude that his petition is timely.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file,
including the report and recommendation and the objections thereto, the court OVERRULES the
objections. The court hereby ADOPTS the report of the Magistrate Judge and ACCEPTS his
recommendation. In accordance with the recommendation, the court finds that the petition is due
to be dismissed as untimely.
This court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has made a
substantial
showing
of
the
denial
of
a
constitutional
right.”
28
U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, a “petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists
would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), or that “the issues presented were adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal
quotations omitted). The court finds Petitioner’s claims do not satisfy either standard.
2
The court will enter a separate Final Judgment.
DONE and ORDERED this July 10, 2020.
_________________________________
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?