BUTLER v. ZATECKY

Filing 11

Entry Discussing Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying Certificate of Appealability - Petitioner Imari Butler was found guilty of various crimes following a jury trial in an Indiana state court. He is currently serving a 60-year sentence for these crimes. Butler now seeks a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Butler's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. In addition, the Court finds that a certificate of appealability should not issue. The Court therefore denies a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 3/22/2018.(JDC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
IMARI BUTLER,
Petitioner,
v.
DASHAN ZATECKY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-cv-04080-WTL-DML

Entry Discussing Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
and Denying Certificate of Appealability
Petitioner Imari Butler was found guilty of various crimes following a jury trial in an
Indiana state court. He is currently serving a 60-year sentence for these crimes. Butler now
seeks a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Butler’s petition for a writ
of habeas corpus is denied. In addition, the Court finds that a certificate of appealability should
not issue.
I. Background
In November 2010, after a jury trial, Butler was convicted of rape, criminal deviate
conduct, and sexual battery. He stipulated to being an habitual offender. The trial court sentenced
him to 15 years executed in the Department of Correction for rape, 15 years for criminal
confinement, and one-and-a-half years for sexual battery. The trial court ordered the rape and
criminal confinement sentences to be served consecutively and concurrent with the sexual
battery sentence. The trial court enhanced Butler’s rape conviction by 30 years because of his
status as an habitual offender for a total aggregate sentence of 60 years.
Butler appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals. On August 12, 2011, the Indiana Court

of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence. Butler did not seek review by the Indiana
Supreme Court.
On July 11, 2012, Butler filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the trial court (“PCR
court”). The PCR court found that Butler was not sufficiently advised of his right to a jury trial
on the habitual offender enhancement. The PCR court therefore set aside Butler’s habitual
offender adjudication and corresponding sentence. On May 5, 2014, a jury trial was held solely
on Butler’s habitual offender charge. The jury found him to be an habitual offender, and Butler
was re-sentenced to a 30-year enhancement, which was attached to his 15-year sentence for rape
and 15-year sentence for criminal confinement for a total aggregate sentence of 60 years. Butler
appealed and on February 20, 2015, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the habitual offender
enhancement. Butler petitioned for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court and on June 5, 2015,
the Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer.
On November 3, 2017, Butler filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
II. Discussion
Butler seeks habeas relief arguing that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in refusing
his tendered jury instruction regarding jury nullification in the retrial of his habitual offender
enhancement; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting alleged prior bad acts
during the retrial on his habitual offender enhancement. The respondent argues that Butler’s
claims are barred by the statute of limitations and are procedurally defaulted. Because the
petition is untimely, the Court need not address whether the claims are procedurally defaulted
and the petition must be dismissed with prejudice.
In an attempt to “curb delays, to prevent ‘retrials’ on federal habeas, and to give effect to
state convictions to the extent possible under law,” Congress, as part of the Anti-terrorism and

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, revised several of the statutes governing federal habeas
relief. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 404 (2000). Along with triggering dates not applicable
here, “[u]nder 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), a state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief has just
one year after his conviction becomes final in state court to file his federal petition.” Gladney v.
Pollard, 799 F.3d 889, 894 (7th Cir. 2015). “The one-year clock is stopped, however, during the
time the petitioner’s ‘properly filed’ application for state postconviction relief ‘is pending.’” Day
v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 201 (2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)).
Butler’s claims relate to the retrial of his habitual offender conviction. After the trial
court granted his motion for post-conviction relief, a new trial was held on the habitual offender
charge. The jury found him to be an habitual offender and he was re-sentenced to a total sentence
of 60 years. He appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals and after his conviction was affirmed,
petitioned for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court. That court denied transfer on June 5, 2015.
He had 90 days – through September 3, 2015 – to seek certiorari to the United States Supreme
Court. His conviction and sentence became final, and the statute of limitations began to run, that
day. He therefore had one year, until September 3, 2016, to file a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. He filed this petition on November 3, 2017, more than a year after the statute of
limitations expired. His petition is therefore barred by the statute of limitations. He does not
contend that he is entitled to equitable tolling on any basis. Because it is barred by the statute of
limitations, Butler’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed with prejudice. See
Altman v. Benik, 337 F.3d 764, 766 (7th Cir. 2003) (per curiam).
III. Conclusion
“[H]abeas corpus has its own peculiar set of hurdles a petitioner must clear before his
claim is properly presented to the district court.” Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 14 (1992)

(O’Connor, J., dissenting) (internal citations omitted).

Butler has encountered the hurdle

produced by the one-year statute of limitations. He has not shown the existence of circumstances
permitting him to overcome this hurdle, and hence is not entitled to the relief he seeks. His
petition for a writ of habeas corpus is therefore denied with prejudice.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IV. Certificate of Appealability
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules
Governing § 2254 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court finds that Butler has failed to
show that reasonable jurists would find “debatable whether [this court] was correct in its
procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court therefore denies a
certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________

Date: 3/22/18
Distribution:
IMARI BUTLER
893963
PENDLETON - CF
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Chandra Hein
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
[e-mail]

Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana