Smith v. Hobbs
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 finding plaintiff's petition time-barred; and denying the certificate of appealability; terminating 15 Motion to Appoint Counsel filed by Mark Jeffery Smith. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 5/27/11. (kpr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
MARK J. SMITH
CASE NO. 5:10cv00206 BSM/HDY
RAY HOBBS, Director of the
Arkansas Department of Correction
The proposed findings and recommendations from Magistrate Judge H. David Young
have been submitted. After careful review of those findings and recommendations, the timely
objections received thereto, and a de novo review of the record, it is concluded that the
findings and recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their
entirety in all respects. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Petitioner Mark J. Smith (“Smith”) claims habeas relief maintaining his actual
innocence. Although he pled guilty to the charge of failure to register as a sex offender, a
violation of Arkansas Code Annotated § 12-12-904, he now maintains the statute does not
apply to him. As Magistrate Judge Young concludes in his proposed findings and
recommendations, Smith’s habeas petition is time-barred. It was filed more than a year after
the conviction. In his objections, Smith argues that the statue of limitations should be
equitably tolled. He bases this argument on the assertion that appointed counsel “lulled him
into inaction” by not informing him that the statute actually did not apply to him. He
maintains that it was only after he was paroled that he obtained a copy of the statute and
determined that he was actually innocent. This statement is somewhat confusing, however,
because it appears that Smith has been in prison since he pled guilty. Even so, his argument
fails. Simply because an individual is in prison does not mean he has no access to legal
material. Within the year allowed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act to
file a habeas petition, Smith could have located the statute under which he pled guilty and
made the same arguments he makes today. His petition is indeed time-barred.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2554 Cases
in the United States District Court, it must be determined whether to issue a certificate of
appealability in the final order. In § 2254 cases, a certificate of appealability may issue only
if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2). There is no issue on which petitioner has made a substantial
showing of a denial of a constitutional right. Thus, the certificate of appealability is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of May, 2011.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?