Roam v. Norris
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION recommending that the District Court dismiss with prejudice 2 Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and deny 13 Petitioner's renewed request for production of documents and motion for appointment of counsel as moot. Objections to R&R due no later than 14 days from the date the Recommended Disposition is received. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 1/5/10. (hph)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS P I N E BLUFF DIVISION R O B E R T L. ROAM, ADC #69777 V S. NO. 5:08-CV-00344-JLH-BD PETITIONER
L A R R Y NORRIS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction R E C O M M E N D E D DISPOSITION I. P r o c e d u r e for Filing Objections:
R ESPON D EN T
T h e following recommended disposition has been sent to Chief United States D is tric t J. Leon Holmes. Any party may file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the o b je c tio n . If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the e v id e n c e that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must b e received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (1 4 ) days from the date you receive the Recommended Disposition. A copy will be f u rn is h e d to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of th e right to appeal questions of fact. M a il your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to: Clerk, United States District Court E a s te rn District of Arkansas 6 0 0 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 L ittle Rock, AR 72201-3325
B ackground: O n May 12, 2008, Petitioner Robert L. Roam pled guilty in Sebastian County
C irc u it Court to two counts of delivery of methamphetamine, possession of drug p a ra p h e rn a lia , and possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. (Docket entry # 5 -2 ) Petitioner was sentenced to 300 months' imprisonment with 180 months suspended f o r the delivery of methamphetamine and possession with intent to deliver convictions a n d 120 months' imprisonment for possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court e n te re d the Judgment and Commitment order on May 16, 2008. (#5-2) On May 28, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea with the tria l court under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.1. (#5-3) On June 12, 2008, th e trial court entered an order denying the motion as untimely. Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal with the Arkansas Supreme Court seeking re v ie w of the trial court's order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. On S e p te m b e r 2, 2008, the trial court granted Petitioner an extension of time until November 3 , 2008, in which to lodge the record for his appeal. Petitioner, however, never lodged th e record with the Arkansas Supreme Court in order to perfect his appeal. O n November 10, 2008, Petitioner tendered a "Motion for Belated Appeal of M o tio n to Withdraw Guilty Plea" to the Arkansas Supreme Court. (#12-2) In the M o tio n , Petitioner alleged that he could not lodge the record because the trial court d e n ie d him a copy of his trial record at the public's expense. The Arkansas Supreme
Court did not file the motion but sent a letter to the Petitioner advising him that the m o tio n could not be filed until he provided a certified copy of the original judgment, the m o tio n to withdraw, the order denying the motion, and the notice of appeal. (#12-3) There is no evidence in the record that Petitioner ever provided the Arkansas Supreme C o u rt with the documents necessary to file his motion. F o llo w in g entry of the Judgment, Petitioner did not seek post-conviction relief w ith the trial court under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37. (#5-7) P e titio n e r filed this § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus claiming: (1) his c o n v ic tio n was obtained by a plea of guilty that was unlawfully induced and not made v o lu n ta rily; (2) his conviction was obtained by the unconstitutional failure of the p ro s e c u to r to disclose evidence favorable to his defense; (3) ineffective assistance of c o u n s e l; and (4) he was denied his right of appeal when the trial court and its clerk denied h im free copies of his trial transcript. In response to the petition (#5), Respondent argues that Petitioner's first three c la im s are procedurally barred and that Petitioner's fourth claim does not allege a v io la tio n of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, as required by 28 U .S .C . § 2254. Petitioner replied to the response claiming that his attorney caused his d e f a u lt by failing to advise him to file a state post-conviction petition, and the Sebastian C o u n ty Circuit Court and its Clerk caused his default by denying him a free copy of the
trial transcript so that he could perfect his appeal. (#11) For the reasons set forth below, th e Court recommends that the District Court dismiss the petition with prejudice. III. P r o c e d u r a l Default: B e f o re seeking federal habeas review, a state prisoner must first fairly present the s u b s ta n c e of each claim to each appropriate state court, thereby alerting those courts to th e federal nature of his claims and giving them an opportunity to pass upon and correct a n y constitutional errors. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29, 124 S.Ct. 1347 (2004); see a ls o 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c). "[A] federal habeas petitioner's claims must rely on the s a m e factual and legal bases relied on in state court." Interiano v. Dormire, 471 F.3d 8 5 4 , 856 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Winfield v. Roper, 460 F.3d 1026, 1034 (8th Cir. 2006) a n d Osborne v. Purkett, 411 F.3d 911, 919 (8th Cir. 2005)). Claims raised in a federal habeas petition that were not presented in state court p ro c e e d in g s and for which there is no remaining state court remedy are defaulted, and a h a b e a s petitioner's default will be excused only if he can "demonstrate cause for the d e f a u lt and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or d e m o n s tra te that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of ju s tic e ." Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2565 (1991). If no c a u s e has been shown, the prejudice element need not be addressed. McCleskey v. Zant, 4 9 9 U.S. 467, 502, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 1474 (1991).
In this case, Petitioner pled guilty to the charges that led to his sentence. Accordingly, he could not file a direct appeal of his conviction. See ARK. R. APP. P. C RIM. 1(a). Petitioner did file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court, h o w e v e r, denied the motion as untimely, and Petitioner failed to perfect an appeal of the tria l court's order. Additionally, Petitioner never attempted to bring a Rule 37 petition b e f o re the trial court. Consequently, Petitioner's claims are procedurally defaulted unless h e can establish "cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged v io la tio n of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a f u n d a m e n ta l miscarriage of justice." Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2565 (1991). A. C a u s e and Prejudice
In his reply to respondent's procedural default argument, Plaintiff claims his d e f a u lt was caused by his attorney and by the trial court's refusal to provide him with a f re e copy of his trial transcript so that he could perfect his appeal. Neither of these c irc u m s ta n c e s , however, constitutes cause. Cause is established when "some objective factor external to the defense impede[s] c o u n s e l's efforts to comply with the State's procedural rule." Murray v. Carrier, 477 U .S . 478, 488, 106 S.Ct. 2639 (1986). In proceedings in which the Sixth Amendment re q u ire s legal representation, ineffective assistance of counsel can be cause for a p ro c e d u ra l default. Murray, 477 U.S. at 488. A defendant is not, however,
constitutionally entitled to effective assistance of counsel in state post-conviction p ro c e e d in g s . See Coleman, 501 U.S. at 752. Consequently, any post-conviction advice P e titio n e r received from his attorney cannot constitute cause for a procedural default. See A rm s tr o n g v. Iowa, 418 F.3d 924, 927 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Nolan v. Armantrout, 973 F .2 d 615, 617 (8th Cir. 1992)). Further, a claim of ineffective assistance must be presented to the state courts as an in d e p e n d e n t claim before it may be used to establish cause for a procedural default. B e a u lie u v. Minnesota, 583 F.3d 570, 575 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Taylor v. Bowersox, 3 2 9 F.3d 963, 971 (8th Cir. 2003)). In this case, Petitioner did not file a Rule 37 petition w ith the trial court alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, ineffective a s s is ta n c e of counsel cannot be cause for Petitioner's procedural default. P e titio n e r claims that the trial court and its clerk prevented him from complying w ith the State's procedural rules because, even though he was proceeding in forma p a u p e ris , the state trial court denied his request for a free transcript of the proceedings so th a t he could perfect his appeal. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a state c a n constitutionally deny an indigent prisoner a free trial transcript unless the petitioner c a n show that the issues on appeal are not frivolous and that the transcript is required to d e c id e the issues. See Smith v. Lockhart, 882 F.2d 331 (8th Cir. 1989); United States v. L e w is , 605 F.2d 379, 380 (8th Cir. 1979).
In this case, Petitioner has not demonstrated that he made such a showing to the tria l court. (#12-4) Thus, the trial court's failure to provide a free transcript and the A rk a n sa s Supreme Court's refusal to file his motion to file a belated appeal without a p a rtia l record is not "interference by officials" sufficient to constitute "cause" for P e titio n e r's procedural default. See Sherron v. Norris, 69 F.3d 285, 289 (8th Cir. 1995) (p ro se status and refusal of the state court to give him a copy of the transcript without a s h o w in g that issues on appeal were non-frivolous and transcript was required to decide th e issue did not constitute cause for default). B e c a u s e Petitioner has not established cause for his default, the Court will not a d d re s s prejudice. B. M is c a r r ia g e of Justice
P e titio n e r also may overcome procedural default by showing that failure to hear his p e titio n would result in a miscarriage of justice. To establish a miscarriage of justice, a p e titio n e r must show that, based on new evidence, a constitutional violation has resulted in the conviction of someone who is actually innocent. Cagel v. Norris, 474 F.3d 1090, 1 0 9 9 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 316, 115 S.Ct. 851 (1995)). P e titio n e r has not come forward with any new evidence of actual innocence in order to o v e rc o m e the procedural default. Thus, his petition should be denied.
C o n c lu s io n : T h e Court recommends that the District Court dismiss with prejudice Petitioner's
p e titio n for writ of habeas corpus (#1) and deny Petitioner's renewed request for p ro d u c tio n of documents and motion for appointment of counsel (#13) as moot. D A T E D this 5th day of January, 2010.
____________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?