Chappell v. Hobbs

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING 28 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Plaintiff's habeas corpus petition is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on August 13, 2012. (src)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
DANIEL CHAPPELL

PETITIONER

v.

Civil Case No. 11-5141

RAY HOBBS, Director,
Arkansas Department of Correction

RESPONDENT

O R D E R
Now

on

this

13th

day

of

August,

2012,

comes

on

for

consideration the Magistrate Judge's Report And Recommendation
("R&R")

(document

Magistrate
(document

#28),

Judge's
#29),

and

Report

and

the

Respondent's

And

Court,

Objections

Recommendation
being

well

To

The

("Objections")

and

sufficiently

advised, finds and orders as follows:
1.

Petitioner Daniel Chappell ("Chappell") herein seeks a

writ of habeas corpus that would remove him from the custody of
the Arkansas Department of Correction, where he is imprisoned on
a State sentence, while recognizing that he would immediately be
detained in the United States Bureau of Prisons on a federal
sentence.

He

alleges

that

his

plea

in

the

State

case

was

involuntary; that his Judgment and Commitment Orders in the State
case are invalid; that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel in the State case; and that there was a violation of the
Plea Agreement by the State.
2.

The

facts

may

be

briefly

summarized

as

follows.

Chappell was arrested by State authorities and charged with rape;

computer exploitation of a child; distributing, possessing or
viewing a matter depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a
child; and possession of methamphetamine.

He was subsequently

indicted by federal authorities on seven counts of inducing a
minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of
producing a visual depiction of such conduct, and two counts of
inducing a minor in his custody to engage in sexually explicit
conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such
conduct.
Recognizing that he was going to prison for the rest of his
life, and not wanting to put his victim through a trial, Chappell
tried to arrange things so that he could serve his time in a
federal prison rather than a state prison. His State attorney was
able to postpone sentencing on the State charges until after
Chappell was sentenced on the federal charges, and the State court
sentenced Chappell to serve his State sentence concurrently with
his federal sentences, but this did not produce the desired
result.
It turned out that because the State was the first sovereign
to take Chappell into custody, he would have to serve his State
sentence first, regardless of which sovereign imposed its sentence
first.

As a result, Chappell has to serve time in the Arkansas

Department of Corrections before commencing his federal sentence,
and his State sentence must be served in addition to, rather than

-2-

concurrently with, his federal sentence.
3.

The matter was submitted to United States Magistrate

Judge James R. Marschewski for report and recommendation.

Judge

Marschewski appointed an attorney to represent Chappell; conducted
an evidentiary hearing; received briefs from both parties; and
extensively analyzed all of Chappell's arguments.

While he found

that Chappell made some valid points, ultimately he determined
that the Petition was time-barred, and recommended that it be
denied for that reason.
4.

Chappell has not filed timely objections to the R&R.

Respondent, however, has filed Objections.

While Respondent does

not object to the ultimate conclusion of the R&R, he objects to
Judge Marschewski's conclusion that, but for the statute of
limitations, Chappell petition would warrant habeas corpus relief
because there is cause to excuse his failure to exhaust his state
remedies, and his claims are meritorious. Respondent's Objections
are made, he says, out of an "abundance of caution."
5.

The Court is not persuaded that there is anything to be

gained by analyzing Respondent's Objections, inasmuch as they are
moot.

They do not go to the dispositive issue, which is not

challenged by either party.

The Court will, instead, adopt the

conclusion of the R&R that Chappell's habeas corpus Petition is
time-barred, and the Petition will be dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report

-3-

And Recommendation is adopted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because it is barred by the
statute of limitations, as stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report
And

Recommendation,

plaintiff's

habeas

corpus

Petition

dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren
JIMM LARRY HENDREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-

is