Smith v. Norris

Filing 45

ORDER denying 44 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 4/30/09. (dac)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS P I N E BLUFF DIVISION A L B E R T KIETH SMITH A D C # 133395 VS. NO. 5:07CV00310-BD PETITIONER L A R R Y NORRIS, Director, Arkansas Dept. of Correction R ESPO N D EN T ORDER B y Order dated March 26, 2009, this Court denied Petitioner's application for a w rit of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 that challenged Petitioner's conviction for c a p ital murder and kidnaping in the Circuit Court of Benton County, Arkansas. In his h a b e as corpus action, Petitioner claimed: (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction; (2) the trial court erred by failing to direct a verdict based on insufficiency of the evidence; (3) the trial court erred by permitting the State to shift the burden of proof to Petitioner; (4 ) the trial court erred by failing to properly instruct the jury with regard to evidence that w a s not admitted for the truth of the matter asserted; (5) the trial court erred by permitting th e state to introduce evidence of prior bad acts; and (6) ineffective assistance of trial and a p p e lla te counsel. This Court denied the petition finding that Petitioner's jurisdiction and b u rde n -shif tin g claims were without merit and all of Petitioner's remaining claims were p ro c e d u ra lly barred. Petitioner has filed a Motion for a Certificate of Appealability (COA) in which he a sk s the Court to allow review of whether sufficient cause exists to overcome the p ro c e d u ra l bar in relation to his ineffective assistance of counsel and other procedurally d e f au lte d claims. Petitioner claims that his "constitutional rights to effective assistance of c o u n se l at all stages of the criminal proceedings and on direct appeal of his conviction; h is right to an appeal of this criminal conviction and his right to a fundamentally fair trial w e re violated." (#44 at p. 2) T h e COA statute establishes procedural rules and requires a threshold inquiry into w h e th e r the circuit court of appeals may entertain an appeal. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 4 7 3 , 482, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1603 (2000). Title 28 U.S.C. 2253 limits the right of appeal to cases in which "a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability . . . in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention arises out of process issued by a State c o u rt[ .]" 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(A). In Slack, the Supreme Court addressed the requirements a petitioner must meet to s a tis f y 2253(c). The Court stated: W h e n the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds w ith o u t reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a COA sh o u ld issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would f in d it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a c o n stitu tio n a l right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable w h e th e r the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. . . .Where a p lain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to d is p o s e of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the d is tric t court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be a llo w e d to proceed further. In such a circumstance, no appeal would be w a rr a n te d . S la c k , 529 U.S. at 484. 2 A f te r careful consideration, the Court finds that a reasonable jurist could not c o n c lu d e that the Court erred in dismissing Petitioner's claims as procedurally defaulted. In this case, the procedural bar is plain. On direct appeal of his conviction, the Arkansas S u p r e m e Court dismissed Petitioner's sufficiency of the evidence claim on procedural g ro u n d s because the argument was not preserved for appeal. Smith v. State, 367 Ark. 2 7 4 , 282-87, 239 S.W.3d 494, 501 (2006). It also dismissed his failure to instruct claim o n procedural grounds for Petitioner's failure to substantiate the claim with any argument o r authority in his appellate brief. Id. After the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal, P e titio n e r attempted to file a petition for post-conviction relief with the trial court. The tria l court dismissed the petition, which included Petitioner's ineffective assistance of co u n sel claims, on procedural grounds because Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 3 7 .1 (d ) requires a petitioner to verify a Rule 37 petition and the petition filed by P e titio n e r was not verified within the time allowed under Rule 37. Smith v. State, No. CR 0 7 -2 4 1 , 2007 WL 1448707 at *1 (May 17, 2007); see Hunt v. Houston, ___ F.3d ___, 2 0 0 9 WL 1078314 at *7 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding federal courts may not review claims th e state court has refused to consider because of petitioner's failure to satisfy a state p ro c e d u ra l requirement unless the procedural rule is not firmly established and regularly f o llo w e d ). Petitioner has not claimed that the procedural rules the state courts applied to h is case were not firmly established or regularly followed. 3 P e titio n e r claims that Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1(d) is u n c o n stitu tio n a l, however Petitioner never raised this issue in an appeal to the Arkansas S u p r e m e Court. Consequently, it is defaulted. Additionally, Petitioner never raised a F e d e r a l Constitutional claim with the state courts regarding evidence of "prior bad acts" a d m itte d at trial. Consequently, Petitioner's claims are plainly barred unless he can e sta b lis h cause and prejudice. In his motion for COA, Petitioner again argues that the Respondent's failure to h a v e more than two copies of the 2006 Arkansas Court Rules in the prison library and the B e n to n County Circuit Clerk's filing of his unverified petition caused his default. A r e a so n a b l e jurist, however, could not conclude that these circumstances constitute cause f o r Petitioner's default. This Court is not unsympathetic to Petitioner's claim that his trial an d appellate counsel caused the defaults at trial and on direct appeal; however, this Court c a n n o t consider that claim because the state courts have held, based on firmly established a n d regularly followed procedural rules, that Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel c la im s are procedurally barred. Accordingly, the Motion for Certificate of Appealability (#44) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 30th day of April, 2009. _____________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4

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?