Rattler v. Warden
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 10/30/2017. (c/m 10/30/2017 tds, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAN()
Southern Division
1311Oel 30 A It: 25
ALFRED RATTLER,
*
Petitioner',
.
*
L
*
WARDEN R. GRAHAM, 1'1 al.,
*
Respondents.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Case No.: C.IlI.' 5-1799
*
MEMORAN()UM
*
*
*
robbery and related offenses. lOCI' No. I (supplemented
1(11'
armed
by lOCI' NO.3. lOCI' NO.4. lOCI' No.6).
Warden R. Graham and the Attorney General of the State of
Maryland argue that the petition is time-barred
Penalty Act ("AEDPA").
*
Institution in Cumberland.
filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus regarding his 2000 convictions
In a limited answer. Respondents
*
OPINION
Allred Rattler. an inmate at the Western Correctional
Maryland.
*
under the Anti.Terrorism
and Effective Death
ECF NO.5. Rattler argues that his elaim is not lime-barred
because he
has presented a colorable elaim of actual innocence and is entitlcd to cquitable tolling of his time
limitation.
Ecr No.
GO\'l'rnill~ Sl'clioll
2254(e)(2).
II at 6.1 No evidentiary
hearing is necessary. SI'I' Rule 8(a). RIIll's
225-1 Casl's inlhe Vllill'd Slall's Dislricl COllrls:
.1('1'
also
28 U.S.c. ~
For the reasons set I(Hth herein. the Petition is denied.
I Pin cites to documents filed on the Court's electronic filing system (CI\VECF) refer to the page numbers generated
by that system. The COlirt notes that Petitioner's Response to Respomknt"s Answer arrears to he missing what he
has labeled as page..t Jnd page 8.
-
BACKGROUNU2
I.
In October
was convictcd
handgun.
1999. alier a .jurv trial in thc Circuit Court I(lr Monll!omcrv ". County. Rattlcr
~
•...
"
of armed robbcry. assault. illegal usc of a handgun. and illcgal posscssion
ECF NO.9-I
at 1: ECF No. 9-2. Rattler was sentcnccd
Id. He appealcd his conviction.
live year term of conlinement.
Special Appeals of Maryland
illegal possession
aflirmed
of a handgun.
case for rcsentencing
for writ of certiorari
Rattler" s conviction
on Junc 7. 2000. to a twcntyand on May 11.200 I. the Court of
for illegal usc of a handgun and
vacated his lirst degree assault convictions
on the armed robbery conviction.
of a
and remanded
thc
ECF No. 9-2 at 15. Rattler tiled a petition
to the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
2001. See Roilier ". S/a/e. 365 Md. 475 (2001). Rattler's
which was denicd on Scptcmber
convictions
14.
bccamc linal on Decembcr
14.2001.
See Harris ". Hu/chil7sol7. 209 F.3d 325. 328 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000) (noting that timc t(1I'
appcaling
state court conviction
the Supreme
concludcs
when time t()r filing pctition tor writ of ccrtiorari
Court. ninety days. expires).
Rattler Ii led a motion for a new trial on September
Novcmber
11. 2000. which was denied on
30. 2001. ECF No. 9-1 at 38. The Court of Special Appeals aflirmcd
No. 9.3. and the court's
mandatc
issued on February
10.2003.
scck further review of this decision and the judgmcnt
Md. Rule 8-302 (requiring
ECF No.9-I
Appeals issues its mandate).
relief in the circuit court.
Eel' No. 9-1 at 46. which. alier being amended. the court dcnicd on January
application
at 45. Rattlcr did not
be tilcd in the Court of Appeals no later
On July 27. 2007. Rattler tiled a petition I(lr post-conviction
9-1 at 67. Rattler's
this ruling. ECF
bccame tinal on February 25. 2003. See
petition lor writ of certiorari
than 15 days alier the Court ofSpeciai
2
in
t()f Icave to appcalthe
19. 2012. Eel' No.
dcnial of other post-conviction
rclicfmls
The facts relied on herein arc either undisputed or vic\\'cd in the light most favorable to the nOIl-1110Vant.
2
denied by the Court of Special Appeals on April 8.2013. ECF No. 9-4 at 2. The court denied
Rattler's motion for reconsideration and issued its mandate on January 29.2014. /d. at I.
Rattler tiled the instant petition on June 14. 20 15.~ ECF No. I. lie alleges prosecutorial
misconduct in that the state's attorneys f~liledto turn ovcr lilrcnsic reports regarding thc bullet
that was recovered li'om the crime scene. ECF NO.3 at 5. !~lilcdto disclose the details ofthc
"deal/arrangement
between Ronald Calvin lIawkins' and the Maryland Virginia law en!t))"cement
agencies:' id. at 22. and elicited false testimony Irom Ilawkins. itl.. at 37. Rattler explains that
motions regarding the turning over of the ttlrensic reports and any known deals were argued in
pretrial motions. /d. at 5. 24. Rattler also alleges here that the search and seizure warrants issued
in his case were improperly obtained. ECF No. 4- 1 at 10. The legality of the warrants was also
litigated at a pretrial suppression hearing. Jd.
On October 28. 2015. Respondents liled a limited answer. arguing that Rattler's petition
is time-barred and should be dismissed on that basis. ECF NO.9 at 7. The Court issued an Order
on October 30. 2015. granting Rattler twenty-eight days Irom that date to IiIe a responsc
addressing the timeliness issue. ECF No. 10. Rattler's response was received on November 25.
2015. ECF NO.1\.
II.
STANDARD
OF REVIEW
A one-year statute of limitations applies to habeas petitions in non-capital cascs I(Jr
persons convicted in state court. S"" 28 U.S.c. ~ 2244(d)( I): Wal/\". Kholi. 562 U.S. 545. 550
(20 II). Section 2244(d)( I) provides that:
,I
The Petition was received on June 18. 2015. but is dated June 14.2015. and is deemed to have been tiled
011
thai
date. See Hoos/oll \'. I.ack. 487 U.S. 266. 276 (1988).
5
Rattler tHld rcp0l1cd his car stolen. Ilawkins was arrested in Alexandria. Virginia while driving Rattler's l'ar.
Hawkins offered to Virginia police that he had information about armed robberies in the area. Ultimately he advised
police and testilicd at trial that he was an unwitting passenger in Rattler's vehicle \\'hcn Rattler stopped ;Ind
committed an armcd robbery of>'I~amburgcr
f~al11leC in Montgomery County. Maryland. flnwkins was released
from detention in Virginia to Maryland authorities and was not charged \\lith the Iheft of Rattler"s vehicle. EeF No.
3 at 25.
3
A I-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas
corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The
limitation period shall run 11'0111 the latcst ot~(A) the date on which the judgmcnt became linal by the conclusion of
direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review:
(13)the date on which the impediment to tiling an application created by
State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United
States is removed, ifthc applicant was prcvented II'om Iiling by such
Statc action:
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially
recognizcd by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly
recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to
cases on collateral review: or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented
could have bcen discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
28 U.S.c.;: 2244(d)(I).
Pursuant to ;: 2244(d)(2). "ltJhe time during which a properly tiled application li)r State
post-conviction or othcr collateral review with respect to the pcrtinent judgmcnt or claim is
pcnding shall not be countcd toward any period of limitation under this subsection:' 28 U.S.c.;:
2244(d)(2). The limitation period may also be subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases.
Ilol/olld \'. Florida. 560 U.S. 631. 645 (2010): lIarris ". 1llIlchillsoll. 209 F.3d 325, 329-30 (4th
Cir. 2000).
III,
I>ISCUSSION
A. Timeliness of Rattler's
~ 225-1 Petition
Respondents argue that the petition is timc-barrcd and should bc dismisscd. ECl' NO.9 at
7. In his supplemcntal bricfs, Rattler acknowlcdgcs that his argumcnts are "untimcly claims:' but
asks that the Court consider his claims bccause hc is "prcsenting sufticicnt evidencc of an 'actual
innoccncc' claim:' Eel' No. 4-1 at 1: ECl' No. 11 at 5-6. Similarly, in his Rcsponse to
Respondcnts' Answer, he does not contend that his Petition complies with;: 224-1(d)( I), but
argucs that he is entitled to equitable tolling. lOCI'No. 11 at 5-6.
-I
As notcd above. Rattler's
statute of limitations
Assuming.
bccame final on Dcccmbcr
bcgan to run on Deccmbcr
without deciding.
convictions
convictions
13.2001.
See 28 U.s.c.
14.2001.
~ 2244(d)(I).
that cach of thc motions tiled by Rattlcr in thc state court ancr his
becamc final did scrvc to toll the limitations
stale court motions and post-conviction
procccdings
pcriod (see 28 U.S.c.
concluded
lie did not tile the instant pctition until June 14.2015.
limitations
pcriod expired. As such. on its face. Rattler's
~ 2244(d)(2)).
on January 29. 2014. "hcn
longer had any motions pcnding in state court and his statc post-conviction
finalizcd.
and thc
procccding
his
hc no
was
wcll ancr the one year
petition is improper.
B. Exeuse of Late Filinl: for "Aetu:lllnnocenee"
The Suprcme
"cvidence
Court held in McQuiggin ". Perkins that a pctitioner
of innocencc
so strong that a court cannot have confidence
may proceed with a habeas petition that othcrwise
who demonstrates
in the outcome orthe
would have been statutorily
time-barrcd.
trial"'
J
33
S. Ct. 1924. 1936 (2013). See "/.10 Uniled Slales \'. Jones. 758 F.3d 579. 581 (4th Cir. 2014). Thc
Supreme
Court "caution[ cd]. however. that tenable actual-innocencc
petitioner
does notmcet
thc threshold
light or the new cvidence.
a reasonable
sufficient
would havc voted to find him guilty beyond
to establish
or a barred claim:'
ora concededly
a miscarriage
/d. at 315-17.
scientific
a claim of actual innocence
at triaL" Schlup. 513 U.S. at 324. "Without
even the existence
"exculpatory
thc district court that. in
doubt. ... McQuiggin. 133 S. Ct. at 1928 (brackets omitted) (quoting Schill!' \'. De/o.
not presented
innocence.
unless he pcrsuades
no juror acting reasonably
513 U.S. 298 (1995)). "To bc ercdible.
evidence
rcquiremcnt
gatcway claims arc rare: .A
evidence.
meritorious
must be based on reliable
any new evidence of
constitutional
violation
is not in itselr
of justice that would allow a habeas court to reach the merits
Examples of potentially
credible declarations
5
sufficient
ncw evidence
include
or guilt by another. trustworthy
eyewitncss accounts. and certain physical evidencc:' Fairman \'. ;/I/(Ierson. 188 r.3d 635. 644
(5th Cir.1999) (citation omittcd). The ncw evidence must be evaluatcd with any other admissible
cvidence of guilt. lVil.wm \'. Greene. 155 F.3d 396. 404-05 (4th Cir.). appl ../i)rslayal1llcal.
denied suh. nom. Wilson \'. Taylor. 525 U.S. 1012 (1998). Thc ncw cvidence must do more than
undcrmine the tinding of guilt: it must "demonstratc that the totality of the evidence would
prevent any reasonable juror from linding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Telegu: \'.
Zook. 806 F.3d 803. 808 (4th Cir. 2015). cal. denied. 137 S. Ct. 95 (2016).
Rattlcr makcs a numbcr of arguments. detailed belo\\'. that he was not aftorded access to
evidence or other procedural protections. Thesc arguments. howcver. present neither new
evidence nor cvidence that demonstratcs his innocencc.
Rattler argues that he was not providcd with certain reports: however. he docs not
identify the reports that were not turncd over. nor docs he explain how thc alleged failure to
provide the reports demonstrates his actual innocence. Instead. Rattler provides excerpts of the
transcript from his criminal trial wherein Terry Eaton. the forensic lirearm and tool mark
examiner lor the Princc George's County Police. was called to testify. ECl' NO.3 at 18-19.
Eaton testitied that he tested the bullet recovered from the crime scene against the weapon
recovered Ii'om Rattler's bedroom and concludcd that the recovered weapon was in tact the
weapon that lired the recovered bullet. /d. at 20. Rattler does not explain how thc unidentilied
ballistic reports would have shown his "actual innocence:'
In rcgard to his claim that the Assistant State's Attorney tililed to disclosc "deals"
arranged with the state's chief witness. Rattler ofTers that this issue was argued at a pretrial
motions hearing. ECl' NO.3 at 24. During the motions hearing. Assistant State's Attorney
Schweitzcr advised the court that there wcre no promises. inducements or deals made with
6
Hawkins other than what had previously been diselosed. Id. Sehweitzer further offered that there
was some question as to whether the "automobile thing over in Alexandria" had been solved. but
Schweitzer indicated that the defense had that full history and they could make their own
decision. Schweitzer further indicated that other than what had happened in Virginia no other
promises had been made. !d
In support of his contention that Hawkins made a deal flJr his release with Virginia
authorities. Rattler has provided a copy of Hawkins's arrest report. ECF No. 6-10. and details
regarding how Hawkins came to the attention of Maryland authorities. ECF NO.3 at 30. Rattler
does not explain how this evidence is new or newly discovered. It is apparent Irom Rattler's
liIings that he and his defense counsel knew prior to trial that J lawkins had made some beneficial
arrangement in exchange for his providing information against Rattler in regard to the armed
robbery. See ECF NO.3 at 42 ("The Grand Larceny Auto/lloftinaster
Report was a part of the
State's . Discovery' package:'): ECF No. 6-10 at 3 (document labeled the "Hoftinaster Report:'
discusses that Hawkins was "released on a personal bond" alier being arrested "'dluc to
Hawkins['
J
desire to work with the police" against Rattler). Rattler does not explain how any of
this constitutes new evidence or advances his elaim of actual innocence.
Rattler also notes discrepancies in Hawkins's testimony regarding when Rattler loaned
Hawkins his ear and under what circumstances. ECF NO.3 at 44--45. 52. Again. none of the
issues that Rattler has identilied regarding Hawkins's testimony constitutes new cvidencc. The
issues raised regarding the inconsistencies in Hawkins's testimony wcre known to defensc
counscl. Moreover. none of the issues with Hawkins's testimony demonstrates Rattler's actual
innocence.
7
Rattler's
prolTered "newly discovered
evidenee"
standard.
have confidcnce
in the outcome of the trial unless the eourt is also satisfied that the trial was Iree
constitutional
crror:'
of innocenee
to meet the demanding
actual innoeence
of nonharm!ess
which rcquires "cvidence
is insurticient
Schillp. 513 U.S. at 316. Rattler has not made the requisite
showing under Mc(jlli)!,)!,in and Schillp to warrant application
exception
to the statute of limitations
claim of actual innoeenee.
evidenee
found the applieant
Rattler's
Rattler lails to demonstrate
that ..the laets underlying
as a whole. would be surtieient
that. but for eonstitutional
guilty of the underlying
lailure to meet the one-year
of the miscarriage
of justice
bar. Rattler has offered no new evidence in support of his
proven and viewed in light of the evidence
and eonvincing
so strong that a eoul1 cannot
error. no reasonable
offense:'
the claim. if
to establish
by clear
lilctlinder
would have
28 U.S.c. ~ 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii).
Therel(lre.
statute of limitations
is not excused.
C. Equitable Tolling
Although
he brielly mentions
offer any speeilic arguments
that he is entitled to "Equitable
demonstrating
liIing deadline. other than his previously
Appeals
equitable
that the Court should equitably
discussed
lor the Fourth Circuit has consistently
claim of"aetual
circumstanees.
circumstance
quotation
his rights diligently,
stood in his way and prevented
marks omitted):
toll his one-year
innocenee."
The Court of
(2) beyond his control or
him Irom filing on time. ROllse
246 (4th Cir. 2003) (en hal1c). Further. to be entitled to equitable
show: "(I) that he has been pursuing
Rattler does not
held that a party seeking to avail itself of
tolling must show that (I) extraordinary
external to his own conduct. (3) prevented
Tolling:'
1'.
I.ee. 339 FJd 238.
tolling, a habeas petitioner must
and (2) that some extraordinary
timely liIing:'
/lo//and.
560 U.S. at 649 (internal
see also Harris. 209 F.3d at 330 (stating that "any invoeation
to relieve the strict applieation
of a statute of limitations
must be guarded and infrequent"
of equity
and
"reserved
for those rarc instances
conduct-it
whcrc--due
would bc unconscionablc
injusticc
to circumstanccs
cxtcrnal to the party's own
to enforce the limitation
pcriod against thc party and gross
would rcsult".).
Ignorance
of the law docs not constitute
tolling. See Ulliled Slaies
grounds for cquitable
\'. Sosa. 364 F.3d 507. 512 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating that "cvcn in thc case of an unrcprcsented
prisoner.
ignorance
knowledge
("Sosa's
of the law is not a basis for equitable
cannot be considered
misconception
nor a circumstance
about thc operation
external to his control."):
at 330. The Court concludes
Petition is time-barred
IV,
"extraordinary"
CERTIFICATE
ofthc
tolling')
or somcthing
Moreover.
"cxtcrnal"
statutc of limitations
see also
ROilSI',
RaHIer's lack of
to him. See itl.
is neither extraordinary
339 F.3d at 246: lIarris. 209 F.3d
that RaHler is not entitled to cquitable
tolling. Accordingly.
the
and is denied.
OF AI'I'EALABILITY
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Govcrning
Proceedings
court is required to issue or deny a ccrtificate
of appealability
to the applicant.
is a "jurisdictional
A certificatc
of appealability
under 28 U.S.c.
~ 2254. thc
whcn it cnters a final order advcrse
prcrcquisite"
to an appeallrom
thc court's earlier order. Ulliled Siaies \'. Haddell. 475 F.3d 652. 659 (4th Cir. 2007). When a
district court dismisses
a habeas petition solely on procedural
appealability
will not issue unless the petitioner
("COA")
of reason would tind it debatable
constitutional
grounds, a certilicate
can demonstrate
both "( I ) 'that jurists
whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial ofa
right" and (2) 'that jurists of reason would find it debatable
court was correct in its procedural
of
ruling ....
ROilSI' \'.
whether the district
Lee. 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001)
{quoting Slack \'. iv/cDalliel. 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). A litigant seeking a COA must
demonstrate
that a procedural
ruling barring relief is itself debatable
9
among jurists of reason:
otherwise. the appeal would not ""deserve encouragement to proceed further:' Buck v. Davis. 137
S. Ct. 759, 777 (2017) (quoting Slack. 529 U.S. at 484). Here, it is clear that Rattler did not
comply with the one-year statute of limitations of
* 2244( d)( I ). and that he has not sufficiently
put forth a claim of actual innocence: 'jurists ofreason" would not find this to be debatable.
Therefore. this Court will not issue a COA.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons. Rattler's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF No. I. is
'~i'"
"0'
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?