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' <hi,""00 i, di,mi,~d.

Dated: OctoberjO

A

~p=" follow,.
Onl"

. 2017

~~

/.-.

.
~(_

1:--t-

GEORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge

10

_