Scott v. Hobbs

Filing 5

ORDER adopting and approving 3 the recommended disposition; dismissing, without prejudice, 2 Plaintiff Willie Scott's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 3/11/2013. (kdr)

Download PDF
FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTFICT /\!~KANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR 11 2013 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION JAMES By:_,£.~~~~-ru::P-r.ti=f~ WILLIE SCOTT ADC #70908 v. PETITIONER CASE NO. 5:13CV00053 BSM RAY HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT ORDER The recommended disposition filed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere has been reviewed, along with the objections filed by Willie Scott. After careful consideration and conducting a de novo review of the record, it is concluded that the recommended disposition should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted in its entirety in all respects. Scott's petition for writ of habeas corpus [Doc. No.2] is dismissed without prejudice. When entering a final order adverse to a habeas corpus petitioner, a certificate of appealability must be issued or denied. Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. A certificate of appealability can be issued only if a petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)( 1)-(2). Mr. Scott has not provided a basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED this lith day of March 2013 ·~ ~--)3 ...._ ~~ ~UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PETITION UNDER 2S' USC § 2254 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DYA PERSON IN STATE CUSTODY Mi 2oi1. REV 6 82 1 PETITION 1. Name and location of court which entered the judgment of conviction under auack . 6 2. r J?\1\\tJ..S ki c: 6, D~;tte of judgment of conviction u\~k4,J Stt S 1 f~t,'?> + j); v{·;u otJ \) e C...· S"". l '19 \ eitS:, u/ t i'- r\bd; EYe_J 'f).p"'-; \ L;D u t"' t bt 19 ? 'J.. 3. Length of sentence----""b;:;._::;;D;...;X'--rS.;::;.....;;....- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ G1. 6- r ct [} ~ i 5·re..ctr>WL ~}" Ce_v-+<.\ii\J p~Y..soJ 4. Nature of offense· involved (all counts) R bbe l-AY, () n.ts ease ·.osigned to Distritt pb s ~ t.'l S) /<:liJ () (;. ~ 5; What was your plea? (Check one) and to Magistrate Judge . .. · (a) Not guilly ~/ (b) Guilty llJ" (c) Nolo contendere 0 It' you entered a guilty plea to one count or indictmenr, and a not guilty plea to another count or indictment, give details: · 6. Kind of trial: (Check one) (a) Jury·.. (b) Judge only 0 lB""' 7. Did ~~testify at the triaW Yes,MNo 0 .. . 8. Did you appeal from the judgment of conviction? Yes DNo~ · · . · ·.' . . · 110.241. REV 6'82 . 9. If you did appeal, answer t.he following: (a) Name of c o u r t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (b) Result - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ , . - - - - - - : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (c) Date·of result~----:--------:-~----------------- (d) Gn:mnds raised 10. Oiber lltail a direct appea~ from the judgment of conviction and sentence, have you previou$1y filed any petitiQns. applica!lons. or motions. with respect to this judgment if) any court, state or federal? Yes &rNo 0 11. If your answer to 10 was "yes," give the following information:. (a) (l) Name of coun C ,'bt:H/ f (2) Natureofproceeding GOLM··± D '{} Pet.,·..J-JoiJ Th-e,Vct+i r..e.., tP14l~S fl Cn , ED'f' I)a.c.:flit';>JV P~+ttloN Po r-- bt' 6 f. D v, / or S.eN±-eJvC-e? eft l:.tJ A- Ill eta tviql S<g n~+tfll c. e • be..Pr: I v.cLJ b 4 ~ PY' o <- e .s·s 1 R'Sh± :ko)'tJal ~~ R,g"}:tt~q.l ±o ~tLow. Pteg. w,':kh,Df\awrv' 1 (3) Grounds raised F/les a.l (4) Did YoU receive an evidentiary hearing on your petition: application Yes 0 (5) Result No &;}""" : · or motion? · ---=b::. .:e: :. ;fi):. ;. .L. .:ejJ: ; : :;cl: : . -. . .:~. :. .; ;. ~U:;.:.:!I);. . !f.c. . :.•. .:t'i\....:..e::::::..:riJ-------------.' (6) Date of rcsuh _ _ _ _ __.e..:./;}..:::;::_-_)wg=L-.~-t.J:....;b::::,.__ _ _ _ _ _ _- " - - - - - (b) As to' any second petition. application or motion give the 'same· information: '4 • 0 i\0 2~1 llllV f/82 0) Grounds r.U~ed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , . . . . - - - - - - - - - - (4) Oid you receive an evidentiary hearing on your petition, application or motion? .YesO No 0 (5) Result - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (6) Date of result - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - . . , . . . . , . . - - - - - - - - (c) As to any third petition, application or motion, give the same information: (l) Name of c o u r t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (2) Nature of proceeding - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (3) Groundsws~ ----------------------------------------~---- (4) Did you receive an evidentiary hearing on your petition, application or motion? 0 No 0 (S) Result - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . , . . . . , . . . . - - - - - - Ye~ (~) Date of result - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (d) Did you appeal co the highest state court having jurisdiction the result of action taken on ~ny petition, application or ~~ . . : (l) First petition, etc. Yes [] No iY"" (2) Second peiirion, etc. Yes 0 No 0 (3) Third petidon, etc. Yes 0 No 0 (e) if you did not appeal from the adverse action on any petition; applicalion or motion, explain briefly why you did nor: rtlot- i\dv,·.se..d Ot i~2eC\\ F Pt-e C-€_SS Gr 8.CA!e .t57 ; 12. Statccottcisely every ground on which you claim that you are being held. unlawfully. Summarizebriefl>' thefitcls supporting ground, If necessary, you may attach pages stating additional grounds and.fc1m supporting same., · .QMJQt~!J!!Elr~~!2Jll'!~~!!~!!U!~J~~·~.J£~!~·~!.~· · first exhaust your uv;1iluble state court remedies · ruu-- 1or1h1tii-~:~~~:. ~.n:!~!~·petlii!i~.:y~~\!'!?~ · i\0 241 REV lJB2 Foryoudnformation, the following is a.Jist of the most frequently raised grounds for relief h1 habeas corpus p~OC~edings. Each statement preceded by a letter constitutes a separate ground foqossible relief. You m11y raJse any gr<>unds which you may have other than those listed if you have exhausted your state couro-emedies with respecuo them. However,yol,l should raise in thisp~litionallavailable grounds (relating to this cl)nviction) on which you base your allegations lltatyou are being held in c::ust~y unlawfully. . . . Do not check any of these listed grounds. If you select one or more· of these grounds for relief, you must allege facts. The ·PC~itic:m will be returned to YoU if you merely check (a) throogh G> or any one of these grounds. (a) Con.viction obtained byplea'ofguilty which was unlawfully induced or not made volunt<»ily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the conseq\lelices of the plea. {b) CollV,iC:tion obtained by use o(CQCr(;ed 'confession. _ . (c) Convlctioo obtained by use ohvidence gained pursu.ant ·to an unconstitutional search and seizure. (d)· Conviction obtained by use of evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful arrest~ (e) Conviction obtained by a violation of the privilege against self-incrimination. (0 Convic:(iO(I obtained by the unc:,onstitulional failure of the prosecution to disclose to the defeildantevidence favorable to the defendant. (g) Conviction obtained by a. violation of the protection against double jeopardy. (h) Conviction obtained by .action of a grand or petit jury which was unconstitutionally selected and impaneled. (i) Denial of etfet::tive assistance of counsel. (j} Denial of right of appeal. fi}\\\i£ £cof-=k S?h:J G.u; \±Y, J\eJ\) ~he. ${q{€. O'Rq\Ly \4. fl\ RA>c.\ e.J. to('\ y>\a j 11)± To f.\.\) b l:\ ct\ot' }vtct\ S {..t£+4~ . A. Ground one: Supporting FACTS (tell your story briefly without citing cases or law):. The L,.O\.JHr~t 'A-iPIY-eJ Htt~! -l-4utl S:htt{Lt,& ~· <S. t!. EX- t1 S - b ) Effe.c+i VI~ RgnJJ~V'r'l\!3 .SecY\-=h B. GIOllnd two: .. eeo '<! ()Ulf' +14 rTJ k9 d. ·CctJ@.eL W~n·\~Y J\\-.}cvJdollle..d <:3coi-~s \)eferJS'e :[:4J Jt)o t- !1ov/rv,] 1-b Sr..,fPCJt:fS.cDi-1-s WtTh 1t'f't.twq,l bt Plect ~:f:k_v- ~ab:±utt[ tJtc:f. ~f~Secl". Sco-f--b rleJGu~· fi;Y ±r> e_~ri"\e. w; i-t: tt:NJe~S{a.Mt1vJA>ll_l/ahtl:~.tal ~>tts:t:!,pes~J. 4>ke.P C~v.v-i SyPt<lS~ .Sc~++·ko;M·_'vJ~+. :t.3,; .· Cvu10 &e: I lA'\ a.d e ,& D ~frec..+'fo He l ~"nt th 'br-.t£W)i-'·pt:e;q:::;&:5:wh·,S1£~ . Supporting FACTS (tell your story briefly without citing cases or law): . . . . ·~ ~ AO 2~1 REV (/82 See. ~'/.. ,. (¥\. l'>J L.6L4v:\- t:>N Ly ~t--t€.~ Jj' ()tf,nJS e I f\tt,sl e r\} 0 E' F Fo v- +- =\ (} \,\e.,\ r Q 'f' c. 'ft~Lll~'R. Sec 1-+ () 17- ~L\.t 'E:aS to..v);f ;:uu'J C'641V3s: \ ~ Supporting FACTS (tell your story briefly without citing cases or law): 3'7., l\ecMA5 e_ f/ze.. CaMRUa.vl- {i Qui\C{ Qg}'elt"S j-o ::£..1{f ,31> d 4 ~£JMet~{A)j ·tAll.± 34YS '+lt)e~'fe-<:.:\;-W<. <!:ot~nJSe.( y.s \\. D. Gwl:lttdfour - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Supportin~ FACTS (tell your ~tory briefly without citing cases or law): 13. Ifapy oftbe grounds listed in 12A, B, C, and D were not previously presente4 in any other<,:ourt, state or federal, state briefly what grounds were not s9 presented, and give your reasons for not pre~nting them: · · 14. Do yo11 bllVC any petition or appeal now pending in any court, either state or federal, as to thejudgmeru under auack? fuO~~ . . .. 15. Give the name and address, if known, of each attorney who represented you in the following stages ofthe jucJgment a,ttacked · herein: "' J · · (a) At preliminary bearing IV. I~ A0241 asvtm (c) At trial (d) At ~entencing _ ___.(/fit~,.:!l- !. . :r~: . .-. ~1" "'1-')-1-(. J. . (~Ir". . .~4a-z. :f.'Y. l-. \~ili~k-~oL.L-w=-'rQc..::;._____________ <0 In any past-conviction proeeeding _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,_Vr-/"""·'/1_..___~----------:------ (g) On appeal from any adverse ruling in a post·conviction proce-eding --'-M__,_/_4_,____________ 16. Were you sentericedon more than one count of an indictment, or on more. than one indictment, in the same court· and atthe s~ine time? Yes ~No 0 17. Do you have any future sentence to serve after you complete the sentence imposed by the judgment under attack? •o~~ (a) If s~, give name and IQGation of court which imposed sente!lce to be served in 1he future: nlf/9 ,; (b) Give date and length of the above sentence: _ _ _ _ ___./1)-=; :..../,_/9.....__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - : - - - - - 1 (c) Have you filed, or do you contemplate filing, any petitie)nattacking the judgment which imposed the sentence to be served in the future? Yes 0 No 0 '( • Wherefore, petitioner ptays that the Court grant petitioner relief to which he may be entitled in this proceeding. !fi)/;r Signature of Attorney (if any) I declare under penally' of perjury that the foregoing is lrue and correct. Executed on 3- 1'6- 97 (date) (7) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI C()UN:'{.Y, ARKANSAS FIRST DI Vl S.l ON ..·CJ Li'- f: -~ .'; . \ '' ; t: : l ! '~ \.i •• l C{h(.~',: STATE OP ARKANSAS ·t .-{_, i • J . :, IP~t NT:l F FIRES POND &NT ..... ; ! v. t j" (,.L_,f:.~//if CR 91-1292 WILLIE SCOTT Before the Court DEFENDANT/PETITIONER 1s Petitioner Willie Scott's Petition for Vacatiou of Sentence, or in the Alternative, Petition for New Trial. and Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. From the petitions and all other matters and things pertaining thereto, this Court doth find, order, and adjudge: 1. On November 19, 1991, petitioner entered a plea of guilty ~6 the charg~s of aggravated robbery and pos~e•sion of a firearm by certain persons. On Dec~~b•t 5, 1991, petitioner was sentenced to 60 years iri the Arkansas Department of Corre6tion on both charges to run concurrently. 2. nn February 11, 1992, petitioner filed a motion for modification of s~ntenee. On April 16, 1992, his senten~Q was modified to 60 years in the Arkansas Depa~tmQnt of Correction on the aggravated robbery cha~ge and 8 years in the Arkansas Departm•tit of Correction on the possession of a firear~ by certain persons charge to run concurrently. Petitioner was given credit for 33 days in jail. 3. A petition for vacation of sentQnoe is a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Crindnal Procedure. n.ule '37 requires that petitions fot post-conviction relief be filed within 90 days of entry of judgment when a de£endant pleads guilty. 4. Petitioner's Petition for Vacation of S.entence, or in the Alternative, Petition for New Trial, and Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis were filed on May 28, 1996. Therefore. petitioner's petition• are untimelY· 5. Petitioner's Petiti~n for Vacation ot Sent~~ce. or Lrt the Al ter:native, Petition for New TrlaL is hereby qenied. 6. Petitioner's Petition to. Proceed ln Formt1 Pauperis is hereby denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 • > t ,: •• ~ •0' il IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COUNTY, ;' : p .. ~-~ f " PULA~K~ ~ -kv.t •· FIRST DIVU1J:()Ii [; f-'; : t ; 55 ARI,<ANSAS, A\,"-:.""-} t,,"'\f·,l, ; _ '\l~t < f\ ,-..h·~ .:j i ~-~,, 11'-\l .. t..l CmCUi f COUNTY CLERK PETITIONER WILLIE SCOTT, -vs- CASE NO. CR 91-1292 STATE OF ARKANSAS, RESPONPENT PETITION FOR VACATION OF SEN'l'ENCE: OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PETITION FOR A NEW TRIAL Comes your Petitioner Willie Scott, PRO SE, and respeCtfully asks this Honorable Court to vc:tcate the sixty years s~ntence that was imJ?osed on him by this Court on December 5, 1991 (CASE NO. CR 91-1292); or in the alternative, he asks this court to gtant him a new trial. In support of this poatition, the Petitioner states and shows the following: 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT On December 5, 1991, this Cqurt sentenced the Petitioner to sixty (60) years imprisonment for the alleged c.t;imes ()f (1) Aggravated Robbery and (2) Possession of a Firearm, respectively, in violation of Arkansas Statute/Code 5-12-103 and 5-73-103. The sentence was imposed upon Petitioner under the guise of his guilty plead to both charged offenses; and so done over his - 1 - GP A.. Z repeated, in essence, objections; thus, and nevertheless; this court has lawful jurisdiction over this petition. and That , before throughout: the sentecing phase of this subject matter at bar, the Petitioner a poverty stricken person was represented by ·court-af?pointed attorney, Honorable William. M. Brown. Petitiont!r 1 s poverty stat~ That, of being still holds real, as the hereto attached in FORMA PAUPERIS declaration will verify. Petitioner also would to impress upon thi.s Honorable Court, the; tact that he is lowly educated, along with being g;uite unlearneCI. in the science/field of law. 11. THE TRIAL COURT IMPOSED AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE OF SIXTY YEARS UPON PETITIONER, BY AND WHEN THE TRIAL COURT DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL ON THE TWO CRIMINAL COUNTS rt'HAT HE WAS PROSECUTED ON. Petitioner submits that on March 2, 1991, he was arrested and jailed, anCI. su}::)sequent1y on May 29, 1991, he was charged with the crimes of aggravated robbery and possession of a firea~m. Petitioner's crime partner, Billy Don Jarrett, was also charged wi th•· possession of a firearm on that same date of May 2 9, 19 91; however, co-crime partner, Jarrett was later o.n exonerated of the alleged crime. That, interval of the date that Petitioner was arrest.ed and charged with the two {2) counts and, his f.irst appearance before this Court (Honorable Floyd J. Lo.fton.) on November 19, 1991, counsel was appointed to - 2 - U~Petitioner by this bX lf.3 court. Petitioner submits that after which time that his attorney had learned and informed Petitioner that Judge Lofton was the Judge assigned to preside over Petitioner's case, along with Petitioner's attorney having briefed Petitioner concerning th~ mitigating factors of the two counts charged to Petitioner-and afterw~rds suggested that perhaps it being more beneficial to Petitioner to plead guilty to both counts and be given a sentence {number of years) by Judge Lofton rather than chance going before a jury: thereupon, the Petitioner ultimatly accepted his attorney's advice, and on November 19, 1991, the Petitioner and l:lis attorney appeared before Judge Lofton, at which time his attorney etitered a plea of guilty to both counts on Petitioner's behalf. petitioner submits that his court-appointed attorney tried wit.nout success to get JUdge Lofton to sentence Petitioner that verY December,5th. date, and as Petitioner had also been lead to believe by his attorney that Judge Lofton would do so sh~rtly afte:r ascertaining (Judge Lofton) that Petitioner's plea of guilty was solely voluntary. The Petitioner was furthermore lead to believe, and be convinced, that it would be Judge Lofton whom would actually decision what sentence (numbers of years) to give Petitioner, by and when Judge Lofton declared to Petitioner on that same December 5th., 1991 date that1 and 'quoting' in pertinent part from the hearing's transcript, page II: THE COlJRT: 0 • • • • • My role now is to give him sometime that I think he needs for punishment for the wrong that he's committed. ! don't know what I'm going to do but I'd - 3 - just as soon hear from these otbc:;r people. And what.ever :t do will pr<:>oably be less than what a jury would (lQ. so, he's getting g bargain by pleading. .I'm certpin of that l:;iecause you all have been up here long enough to know t;hgt if you. plead guilty in thi:;3 court you get some consiCieration for pleading gtiilty.****Passed to--Give me a couple of.weeks' time, a Tuesday or Thursd.ay. COURT REPORTER: Twelve Three. THE COURT: Twelve Three Ninety-one at 8:30 for a hearing, for a presentence hearing." Unquote. Petitioner submits that not withstanding the fact that he was-[ultimately, TRICKED]-lead to believe by FIRS.T his attorney, and, next by .'Judge Lofton, that it would be JUDGE LOFTON whom woUld decide and impose sentence upon Petitioner-- ['\vhich incidentally, because of Petitioner's that effect, along with the fact t)'lat he knew from pass experience of having pleaded guilty and was sentenced by Judge Lofton-him (Lofton) to be a fair and considerate man and Judge]; Judge Lofton, however, was surprisingly to Petitioner not the judge seated when the on December 5, 19Ql date, that Petitioner was ultimately summoned for to be septenced before/by the Honorable James P. Massie, Special ( exchc:mge) judge of this Court and, he whom {exchange Judge Massie) had also been an active attorney for Petiioner's cri~e partner~ Mr. Billy Don Jarrett. Petitioner submits that he repeatedly, and timely in advance of actully appearing before exchange Judge Massie, plainly told his court-appointed attorney that he no longer wante.d to go through with his guilty plea before [in particular] exchange Judge Massie. Presumably, and after Petitioner's attorney's refusal/failure to make Petitioner's decision to withdraw his guilty plea known to exchange Judge Massie" and allowed ~ 4 - (P~:t.ition~r' actual sixty s attorney) t.he sentencing proceeding13 to reach (60) years s.entence imposed upon nevert'h.eless, and, well in advance of the E~b P~titioner it~ stage; phgse o:E the sentencing hearing, the Petitioner personally made his decision (change of mind) to witl)draw his guilty plea known to exchange Judge; nevertheless, exchange Judg!i= Massie blatantly ignored Petitioner's repeated declaration to him (Massie) to withdraw the guilty plea, and he (Massie) went ahead on and FORCED a guilty plea to both criminal counts upon Petitioner; which and also ddhsequently resulted in the "Little Habitual" Act Punisl)ment being an additional imposement upon Petitioner; that furthermore, and afterwards, exchange Judge Massie ultimately FORCED a sixty {60) years sentence upon Petitioner in violation of Petitioner's due process right to a jury or court trial on the aggravated robbery and possession of a firearm charges brought a<.;Jainst him. The actual part of the proceedings whereas exchange Judge Massie unjustifiably deprived Petitioner of the right to withdraw the guilty plea and, therefore also to the due process right to a jury or court trial on the two (2) counts charged to Petitioner, went in pertinent part--quoting from the sentencing hearing's transcript~-as follows: (Pages 17-1~) THE COURT; This Court is going to make a determination and it is very rough on me. But you've proven to me please. On the basis of what this Court has heard, this Court has made a determination that you are hereby sentence(! to be taken by the Sheriff to serve a period of sixty years in the Department of Correction under Act 93, which should apply in this circumstance. THE DEFENDANT: Nhat's that? A C ? MR. BROWN: No. It's the habitual statute. THE COURT: You're a habitual, sir. And th~s court, at least speaking from here, hopes from the standpoint that it never has the opportunity again to sentence - 5 - £X r4~b you. Now, according to law, you did enter a plea~enter a plea. ';PHS DEFENDANT: I want to withdraw it, THE C.OURT: And at that timeTHE DEFENDANT: I want to withdraw it. THE COURT: You entered a plea and I know the Judg<;'s hab;i.t. H~ tells you from the standpoint, "If I sentence y(}u to l,ife, what 1 s your plea going to be?" You indi9ated-I a~sume you indicab~d you accepted responsibility in the belief that what you've don.e will merit you somethig less than what I gave You evidently. Now, you do have the ability within thirty days to file something saying th~t you had ineffectiveness of counsel. But, as far as this Court is concerned, you will be in the Department of Correction for the next sixty years. And I thank you, MR. BROWN: Thank you, your Honor. M.ay I step aside, sir? THE COURT: It is the judgment and sentence of this Court sixty years in the Department of Correct~on. (THEREUPON, the sentencing had in the case of the State of Arkansas versus Willie Scott, CR 91-1292, was doncluded.)" Unquote. Petitioner submits, both and as this Court's records clearly show, that he only made his voluntary plea of guilt to both charged counts to JUD.GE LOFTON, and not any PLEA-WHATSOEVER to exchange Judge Massie; therefore, since Petitioner made it timely known to exchange Judge Massie that Petitioner had changed his mind about pleading guilty to the two (2) counts PER.IOD1 thus, Petitioner avers, that exchange Judge Massie then had no justifiable, or otherwise legal, right to self-impose a guilty plea on Petitioner, or on behalf of Petitioner, as Judge Massie "evil eye c:md unequal hand" done so--in inexcusable abuse of his (Judge Massie) discretion and, in gross violation of Petitioner's protected due .process right to a jury or court trial on the (2) criminal counts charged to Petitioner and, to a fair, just, and impartial court. W'her~fore, this case is begging for the gross injustice - 6 - Ex· A· 7. cQ'mmitment in it to be forthwith corrected, which can only be dOne by-as be here the Petitioner's prayer of this Honorable Court,to vacate his sentence; or in the alternative, to g:t:'ant Petitionera new trial. 11 THE PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS DUE PROCESS :RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. Petitioner submits that from the very outset of his attorney's (Mr. William M. Brown) appointment to represent Petitioner by this Court, Mr. Brown spent the bulk of his {Mr. Brown) energy mind conditioning Petitoner to ultimately consent to him (Mr.Brown) entering a pltla of guilty on Petitioneris behalf to both criminal counts and, Mr. Brown never once from the date of his appointment to represent Petitioner -- even made any attempt to prepare a defense for going to jury trial for Petitioner. Petitioner submits that his court-appointed attorney, Mr. Brown, repeatedly mislead Petitioner into believing things that never came true, such as that ONLY Judge Lofton would be the judge. to sentence Petitioner, and that Petitioner would not get no more than 20 to 40 years at most, as Petitioner plainly told .Mr. Brown out front, and before appearing before Judge Lofton to enter the plea of guilty to both counts, that if the sentence Petitioner were to be given exceeded 30 years, and at most 40 years, then for Mr. Brown to withdraw the guilty plea entered on Petitioner's behalf arid make ready for to represent Petitioner at a jury trial. Petitioner submits that despite the fact that he had well - 7 - in advance, :plainly told Mr. Brown--and the same that Mr. Brown a~sured Petitioner that he (Mr.Brown) would do so--that if a sentence over 40 years at most wert: announced to b~ given to Petitioner at the then upcoming sentencing bearing, then for him CM;r.Brown) to "Withdraw the guilty plea that he (Mr.Brown) had entered ort Petitioner's behalf and afterwards prepare Petitioner's case for jury trial; Mr. Brown outright ineffectively represented Petitioner, and Petitoner's due process liberty interest right to a trial by jury on the.two (2) criminal counts charged to Petitioner, by and·when after exchange Judge Massie had announced a sixty (60) years sentence for Petitioner, Mr. Brown jU,st stood silent; and, Mr. Brown, furthermore, clearly showed his undoubtedly intentional ineffectiveness to properly represent Petitioner, both and his (Mr.Brown) all along mind set to take-and allow Judge Massie to take-advantage of Petitioner's low education and ignorance to the law state of beings, by and when even after he {Mr.Brown) had left Petitioner choiceless but to personally let exchange Judge Massie know that Petitioner had at that time chose to exercise his (Petitioner) due process right to withdraw from the guilty, plea that Mr. Brown had entered to Judge Lofton on Petitioner's behalf: Mr. Brown, made the serious ef.fort to silence Petitioner from attempting to represent his (Petitioner) own legal interests, by Mr. Brown, in essence, so chiding Petitioner as the following in pertinent part quote from the sentencing proceedings transcript-Page 17-declares: THE COURT: This Court is going to make a determination and it is very rough on me. But you've proven to ~e at least that, you know, that you're a danger and you're going to be a danger out here. So, the Court's going to give you sixty years. - 6 - THE DEFENDANT: How many? THE COURT: Sixty years. Six o. Maybe next time, if" you ever get out THE PEFENDANT: I want to withdraw my plea. I want to withdraw my plea. THE COURT: Sir? THE DEFENDANT: I want to MR. BROWN: Just be quiet. THE DEFENDANT: - withdraw my plea. MR. BROWN: Be quiet. Be quiet at this time. [unquote.] Petitioner submits that Mr. Brown never once time warned, or advised, the Petitioner that Petitioner could/would be hit with the Habitual Criminal Act upon a plea of guilt, nor What the penalty phrase of the Act cons is ted of: Petitioner never knew that the Act even ex~sted and in fact, until the very date that exchange Judge Massie forced the sixty (60) years sentence upon Petitioner. Mr. Brown, also refused/failed to make Petitioner knowledgeable.of Rule 37's, and/or Rule 36.4's existence, (lndwnat the basis, or full,"provision(s) of the Rule warrant of an appeal relief nature to Petitioner. Petitioner submit$ that at time of sentencing he made repeated request to withdraw his plea, these same requests were made to c0unsel. However, the court, in dictum gtated that an ineffectiveness of counsel claim could be made within 30 days. Petitioner requested of counsel to make such claim, however, · col.lnsel refused stating that he could not file a petition against himself as that would be a confl:ict of interest. I informed counsel and requested of the court other counsel to represeryt me in my quest to withdraw plea which is a crucial part of the trial proceedings. Neither counsel or the court provided - 9 - me with counsel and the protect ions guaranteed to me by both State ~nd F~deral trial. Constitutions in this critical phase of the Therefore, I was the process due me at that den~ed critical phase of the trial. Petitioner submits that there is ample proofs presented here that his court-appointed attorney indeed, deprived Petitioner of that due effective and in fact, assistance of counsel's representation as prescribed by State and Federal law; therefore, on this ground alone, and/or also, Honorable Court should consider outright vacating Petitioner's sixty (60) years sentence, in or the alternative, grant Petitioner a new trial forthwith. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully· requests this Honorable court for the relief soughted herein. Respectfully submitted, ' 'J \ . /S/tJ~ ~ . . WILLIE SCOTT; PETITIONER A"DC # 70908 MAXIMUM SECURITY UNIT 2501 STATE FARM ROAD TUCKER, AR., 72168~9503 - 10 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Willie Scott, hereby certify that J: nav,e serve.d the·al and. two ( 2) true copies o:t; the :Eoregp;l,ng p:J..eading, by U.s. Mail, p.ost. age· .P r.e-.J?aid.,&./J ~he Honorable Clerk of this ·. Court, on th~s fQ_ day of Yll } , 1996. Is/ t.J {jp:rvj ~ WILLIE SCOTT, PETITIONEJ~ A'DC # 70908 MAX!MOM SECURITY 'UNIT 2501 STATE FARM ROAD TUCKER, AR., 72168-9503 Subscribed and sworn to before me on this Aillt.'l 1996. I I - 11 - .1J2.. day of _ AO 24Q (Rev.,6/"'6) API>lic;;ition to Proceed ~ .- IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF' ?ULASKT COUNTY,, AFI\AN$i'.!) FIRS.T DIVISION ---------~-------DISTRICT \IJ11lie Baoi-t _ Pe-tii1oNeR v. OF-------------·---- APPLICATION TO PROCEED lN FORMA PAUPE~IS, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND ORDER -~-.,. 1 ;" "}'" '-J.-I.j'-"e"'- -.....s~·-=e:....::o~t'-'i·__________, declare that lam the (check appropriate box) .... 1,._'11_· IE( petitioner/plaintiff 0 0 0-------------------------<:>ther responcient/defendant movant (filing 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion) I> ~ in the above-entitled proceeding; that, in support of my request to proceed without being required to prepay fees, cost or giv~ security therefor, I state that because of my poverty, I ani un9ble to pay the costs of said proceeding or give security therefor; thatl believe I ain entitled to relief. The nature of my action, defense, or other proceeding or the issues I intend to present on appeal are briefly stated as follows: In further support of this application, I answer the following questions. 1. Are you presently employed? Y~s 0 No IB"' a. If the answer is "yes," state the amount of your salary or wag~s per month, and give the name and address of your employer. (list Qc,th gross and net salary) b. If the answer is "no," state the date of last employment and the amount of the salary and wages per month which you receiv.ed. 2. Have you received within the past twelve months any money from any of the following sources? · a. Business, profession or other form of self-employment Nofi2( b. Rent payments, interest or dividends? c. Pensions, annuities or life insurance payments? d. Gifts or inheritances? YesO YesO YesO YesO No!B' No.!B' No (B". e. Any other sol,lrces? YesO No [a' AO 240 Rewrse Jfthe answ~r to any qf the above is "yes/' describe: each source of money and state the amo.untre<;eived from each during the past twelve months. . NIA 3. Do you own any cash, or do you haw~ money in checking or savings accounts? Yes 0 No (B' (Include any funds in prison acco.unts.) If .the answer is "yes," state the total value of the items owned. NIA 4; Do you own or have any interest in any real estate, stocks; bonds, notes, alJt()mobiles or other valuable property (exduditigordiriary household furnishings and clothing)? Yes 0 No If the answer is "ye~," describe the property and' state its approximate value. IH' NIA 5. list the persons who are dependent up6n you for support, state your relationship to those .persons, and indicate how much you contribute toward their support. NONE I declare urider penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed'on \ 4-10- 9 6 ..• (Date} Signature of Applicant CERTIFICATE (Prisoner Accounts Only) I cerdfy that the applicant named herein has the sum of$ -~_,;;.:=::__._________ on accountto his credit atthe /Yla'tJMI.HVf 59Ccdrtv V11i institution where he is confined. I further certify that the applicant likewise has the following securities to his credit according to the records of said i n s t i t u t i o n : - - - - - · - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER OF .COURT The application is hereby granted. let the applicant proceed without prepayment of cost or fees or the necessity of giving security therefor. The application is hereby denied United States Judge Date United States Judge or Magistrate Da,te EK t4JCf IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ~.RKANS~S FIRST DIVISION PETITIONER WILLIE SCOTT, -vs- CASE NO. CR 91-1292 RESPONDEN'l' STATE OF .ARKANSAS, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS comes the Petitioner, Willie Sc6tt and moves this court for . leave to proceed in this action in forma pauperis pursua.nt to 28 u.s.c. Sec. 1915(d) without ;first being required to pre-pay fees and costs or otherwise being required to give security therefore. In support of this motion Petitioner has, attached his affidavit of poverty hereto. Respectfully submitted, WILLIE SCOTT, PETITIONER ADC# 70908 MAXIMUM SECURITY UNI~ 2501 STATE FARM ROAD TUCKER, AR., 72168-9503 Subscribed and sworn to before me this i.{2_ day of I'IJ~t,'/ , , 19 9 6. MY C~ MISSION EXPIRES: CE:RTIF!CATE OF SERVIC"E; I, Wil].ie Scott, Pro-se, Petition~r. do hereby certity thQt a copy of the above and foregoing has been mailed to the Respondents attorney( s), by placing copy of same in <the u.s. Mail, postage pre-paid and addressed to the Attorney General's Office; 200 Tower Building, 323 Center Street, Littl.e Rock, .Arkansas 72~01, on th;ls .1...L day of April, 1996. · Respectfully submitted, ILLIE SCOTT / PETITIONEH ADC # 70908 MAXIMUM SECURITY UNIT 2501 STATE FARM ROAD TUCKER, ARKANSAS 72168-9503 J1_ Subscribed and sworn to befor.e me a Notary Public on this day of April, 1996. //-!2 -Zoos- I-1Y COMMISSION EXPI.RES: case 5:97-cv-00159-JWC Document 11 Filed 06/04/98 Page 1 FILED U.S. OISTRlCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN 0 4 1998 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTJAMES .Me EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By··--~~~~L\f~~ PINE BLUFF DIVISION ~ PETITIONER SCOTT NO. PB-C-97-159 Y NORRIS, Director, rkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORQER The Court has received an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 u.s.c. in the the custody of § 2254 from Willie scott, an inmate Arkansas Department of Correction. Respondent concedes that Petitioner is in his custody and has exhausted his state remedies. Following entry of a guilty plea in Pulaski County Circuit Court in December 1991, Petitioner was convicted of aggravated robbery and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced as an habitual offender to sixty years' imprisonment. (Resp't Ex. 1.) 1 By pleading guilty, Petitioner waived his right to a direct appeal under Arkansas law. Ark. R. App. P.-crim. 1(a) (1997) (designated at the time of Petitioner's convictions as Ark. R. Crim. P. 36.1). In May 1996, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, (Resp•t Ex. 2), which the state trial court construed as a petition pursuant to Ark. untimely. R. Crim. P. 37 and denied State v. Scott, No. CR 91-1292 (Pul. Co. Cir. Ct. Dec. 18, 1996) (Resp•t Ex. 3). Petitioner did not appeal and sought no further post-conviction relief in state court. 1 A072A (Rev. 8/82) as Respondent•s exhibits are attached to docket entry #5. Case 5:97-cv-00159-JWC Document 11 Filed 06/04/98 Page 2 of 9 Petitioner then filed this federal habeas petition (docket entry #2), advancing the following claims: 1. After Petitioner pleaded guilty, the state orally amended the information to add an habitual offender charge, denying Petitioner fair notice; 2. He was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his court-appointed attorney failed to move to withdraw the plea after the amendment and failed to advise him of the availability of Rule 37 relief. Respondent asserts that Petitioner's claims are procedurally defaulted because Petitioner failed to properly present them to the state courts. ~Coleman y. Thompson, 501 u.s. 722 (1991). At the direction of the Court, Petitioner responded to this argument (docket entry #9). The state courts should have the first opportunity to review constitutional issues correct federal constitutional errors made by the state's trial courts. Engle y. federal and Isaac, 456 u.s. _107, 128-29 (1982). to A federal habeas petitioner is thus required to pursue all available avenues of relief in the state courts before the federal courts will consider a claim. u.s.c. § 28 2254(b); Duvall y. Purkett, 15 F.3d 745, 746 (8th Cir. 1994). He must "fairly present" the substance of his federal claims, including the facts and legal theory, to the highest state court. Krimmel y. Hopkins, 56 F.3d 873, 987 (8th cir. 1995); Bust v. Hopkins, 984 F.2d 1486, 1490 (8th Cir. 1993). He must present his claims to the state courts in a timely and procedurally correct manner so that the courts will be able to review the merits of the claims. 2 A072A (Rev. 8/82) Kennedy y, Delo, 959 F.2d 112, Case 5:97-cv-00159-JWC Document 11 Filed 06/04/98 Page 3 of 9 15 (8th Cir. Failure to do so will result 1992). rocedural default. in a ~ Where a procedural default has occurred, federal habeas review is permitted only if the petitioner can demonstrate (1) cause for he default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged iolation of federal law, or (2) that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice, that is, that a constitutional violation has resulted the in conviction and continued incarceration of one who is actually innocent. Coleman, 501 u.s. at 750; Murray y, Carrier, 477 u.s. 478, 496 (1986). Cause requires a showing of some impediment, external to the defense, preventing a petitioner from presenting or developing the factual or legal basis of a claim. 89, 492. Hurray, 477 u.s. at 488- Cause must be something "that cannot fairly be u.s. at 753. A attributed to [the petitioner]." petitioner's pro se status, Coleman, 501 lack of education, below-average intelligence, or any unfamiliarity with the intricacies of the law or legal procedure are not sufficiently constitute cause excusing a procedural default. external to Sherron y. Norris, 69 F.3d 285, 289 (8th Cir. 1995); cornrnan y. Armantrout, 959 F.2d 727, 729 (8th cir. 1992); McKinnon v. Lockhart, 921 F.2d 830, 832 n.5 (8th Cir. 1991); Smittie v. Locthart, 843 F.2d 295, 298 (8th cir. 1988). Following entry of his guilty plea but before pronouncement of his sentence, Petitioner could have filed a motion to withdraw 3 A072A (Rev. 8182) Case 5:97 -cv-00159-JWC Document 11 Filed 06/04/98 Page 4 of 9 is guilty plea pursuant to Ark. R. crim. P. 26.1. Additionally, e could have filed a post-conviction petition in state court, to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37, within ninety days of entry of is judgment of conviction, raising his claims of constitutional iolations. Ark. R. Crim. P. 37 .1, 37.2 (c). Although Petitioner filed a Rule 37 petition four and one-half years after his conviction, it was denied as untimely. Any petition now filed nder either rule clearly would be untimely as well. Failure to seek relief under Rules 26.1 and 37 within the designated time limits is a jurisdictional defect. Shipman v. State, 550 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Ark. 1977) (Rule 26.1); Smithy. State, 900 S.W.2d 939, 940 (Ark. 1995) (Rule 37). Petitioner says he tried to withdraw his guilty plea at his sentencing hearing, but his attorney would not help him. (See Sent. Hrg. Tr. at 17-19 (Pet•r Ex. A-2 to docket entry #2).) Ineffective assistance of trial counsel may constitute cause to lift a procedural bar. Murray, 477 u.s. at 488. However, Petitioner cannot assert ineffectiveness of counsel as cause to excuse his procedural default where he has never properly presented that ineffectiveness claim to the state courts. Miller y. Lock, 108 F.3d 868, 871 (8th Cir. 1997); Reese v. DelQ, 94 F.Jd 1177, 1185 (8th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 (1997); Morris v. Norris, 83 F. 3d 268, Wyldes y. denied, 517 Hundley, u.s. 69 F. 3d 247, 253 1172 (1996); Maynard y. 271 s. ct. 2421 (8th Cir. (8th Cir. 1995), 1996); cert. Lockhart, 981 F.2d 981, 984 (8th Cir. 1992); Harris y. Lockhart, 948 F.2d 450, 452 (8th 4 A072A (Rev. 8/82) Case 5:97 -cv-00159-JWC Document 11 Filed 06/04/98 Page 5 of 9 1991); Scroggins v. Lockhart, 934 F.2d 972, 974-75 (8th cir. 991); McKinnon, 921 F.2d at 832; Smittie, 843 F.2d at 298. This is based on the Supreme Court's statement in Murray v. 477 u.s. at 488-89, that "the exhaustion doctrine •.• requires that a claim of ineffective assistance be to the state courts as an independent claim before it ay be used to establish cause for a procedural default." The ighth circuit court of Appeals has applied this requirement even in cases where state remedies are no longer available resenting the ineffective-assistance claim. ~' for Harris, 948 F.2d at 452; scroggins, 934 F.2d at 974-75; McKinnon, 921 F.2d at 832; Smittie, 843 F.2d at 298. 2 Petitioner had a state forum (Rule 37) for arguing that his attorney was ineffective in connection with his guilty plea and sentencing, and the sentencing court advised him that he could 2 In Dawan v. Lockhart, 980 F.2d 470 (8th cir. 1992), a threejudge panel of the court of Appeals stated, in a footnote and without citing any of the Eighth Circuit cases holding otherwise, that Murray's holding that an ineffective-assistance claim must be presented to the state courts before being used to establish cause was a requirement of the exhaustion doctrine and, since no state remedies were currently available for the petitioner to raise his ineffective assistance claims, the exhaustion requirement was satisfied. Id, at 475 n.6. The court of Appeals then stated that counsel's ineffectiveness established the requisite cause to excuse the petitioner's procedural default in the case before it. These statements in Dawan have not been cited as authority in any subsequent case and, in fact, have been expressly rejected in at least one published District court opinion. Harris y. Norris, 864 F. Supp. 96, 98-99 (E.D. Ark. 1994) • Similarly, this Court has determined that the cases contrary to Dawan should control. · 5 AO 72A (Rev. 8182) Case 5:97-cv-00159-JWC Document 11 Filed 06/04/98 Page 6 of 9 (Sent. Hrg. Tr. at 19.) 3 file such a petition. imely. He has not given the ~tate He did not do so courts an adequate opportunity to consider whether his attorney was incompetent; therefore, he cannot now assert ineffectiveness as cause. ~ ldes, 69 F.3d at 253. Petitioner's untimely Rule 37 petition was not a proper presentation of any of his federal habeas claim. Furthermore, he did not appeal the denial of his Rule 37 petition, creating a second procedural obstacle. Failure to appeal the denial of a post-conviction petition to the highest state court constitutes a procedural default. Anderson y. Grease, 106 F.3d 242 (8th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 s. ct. 2488 (1997); Jolly v. Gammon, 28 F.3d 51, 53 (8th Cir. 1994). Petitioner did not present his federal habeas claims to the state courts in a timely and procedurally correct manner, and the time for doing so has expired. Therefore, his claims are procedurally defaulted and federal habeas review is barred unless he can make the requisite showing of cause and prejudice, or actual innocence. Petitioner asserts that he was unable to file a timely postconviction petition because he did not know anything about Rule 26.1 or Rule 37 and neither his attorneys nor the state court advised him of his right to post-conviction relief or explained how to proceed. 3 The court incorrectly advised him that he had thirty days, rather than ninety, to file "something" regarding the effectiveness of his counsel. 6 A072A (Rev. 8/82) Case 5:97-cv-00159-JWC Document 11 Filed 06/04/98 Page 7 of 9 As stated above, nsufficient cause. Petitioner's legal inexperience is Furthermore, there is no state or federal equirement that either the trial court or defense counsel inform criminal defendant of the post-conviction remedies available to etitioner. ~ Morris, 83 F.3d at 270 (attorney's failure to advise criminal defendant of Rule 37 as exclusive state postconviction remedy did not excuse procedural default) ; Hill y. II"""'"'"""'........ ' 737 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Ark. 1987) (no requirement under state constitution or Rule 37 that trial judge inform of appeal from unsuccessful collateral attack on judgment} • In fact, states are not constitutionally obligated to provide for postconviction relief at all, Pennsylyania y. Finley, 481 u.s. 551, 556-57 (1987), nor is there any constitutional entitlement to counsel in state post-conviction proceedings, ColemQn, 501 at 752, 757. u.s. Since he had no constitutional right to post- conviction relief or counsel in the first place, no duty was placed upon the court or his attorney to advise him regarding post-conviction relief. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate cause. Since no cause has been shown, the prejudice element need not be addressed. McCleskey v. Zant, Petitioner makes 499 u.s. 467, 502 (1991). no attempt to fit within the Furthermore, "fundamental miscarriage of justice" or "actual innocence" exception to the cause-prejudice requirement, nor does the narrow exception appear applicable. ~ Schlup v. Dele, 513 u.s. 298, 324-31 (1995) (exception requires habeas petitioner to support his allegations 7 A072A (Rev. 8182) Case 5:97-cv-00159-JWC Document 11 Filed 06/04/98 Page 8 of 9 f constitutional error with new reliable evidence not presented t trial, and to show, in light of the new evidence, "that it is ore likely than not that 'no reasonable juror' would have onvicted him"); weeks v. Bowersox, 119 F.3d 1342, 1350-51 (8th ir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 s. ct. 887 (1998). Petitioner akes no assertion of innocence, nor does he present any evidence o that effect. Petitioner's claims are procedurally barred. for writ of habeas corpus is, therefore, This petition dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED this ~ day of June, 1998. STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WlTti !iULE 5S AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ~N ~/s:L2lf BY _t\:::_,,__ 8 A072A (Rev. 8/82) Case 5:97-cv-00159-JWC Document 11 Filed 06/04/98 Page 9 of 9 c 0 p y F I L E vjt UNITED STATES DISTRICT COD~~ Eastern District of Arkansas U.S. Post Office & Court House 600 West Capitol, Suite 402 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 June 5, 1998 * * Re: MAILING CERTIFICATE OF CLERK * * 5:97-cv-00159. True and correct copies of the attached were mailed by the clerk to the following: Todd Lister Newton, Esq. Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 Willie Scott NCU North Central Unit ADC #70908 H.C. 62 Post Office Box 300 Calico Rock, AR 72519-0300 CC: Elain James W. McCormack, Clerk Date: Case 5:97-cv-00159-JWC Document 12 Filed 06/04/98 - Page1~iLED U.S. DISTRlCT COURT EASTERN DISTRiCT AP.KANSAS JUN 0 4 1Y98 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAMES EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION PETITIONER ILLIE SCOTT NO. PB-C-97-159 RESPONDENT LARRY NORRIS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction JUDGMENT In accordance with the Court's Order entered this date, judgment is hereby entered dismissing this petition for writ of habeas corpus in its entirety, with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED this l.j.h_ day of June, 1998. ATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIAN~~JttJlULE 58. AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON P4L..Z£_BY~--- A072A (Rev. 8/82) 12 Case 5:97-cv-00159-JWC Document 12 Filed 06/04/98 Page 2 of 2 vjt STATES DISTRICT COUR'l Eastern District of Arkansas U.S. Post Office & Court House 600 West Capitol, Suite 402 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 u~~ITED June 5, 1998 * * Re: MAILING CERTIFICATE OF CLERK * * 5:97-cv-00159. True and correct copies of the attached were mailed by the clerk to the following: Todd Lister Newton, Esq. Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 Willie Scott NCU North Central Unit ADC #70908 H.C. 62 Post Office Box 300 Calico Rock, AR 72519-0300 cc: Blain James W. McCormack, Clerk Date: BY'~- a~

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?