Howell v. Fisher et al

Filing 83

ORDER granting 81 Motion to Stay. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 3/21/18. (tab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
MARLON HOWELL

PETITIONER

V.

NO. 3:15-CV-105-DMB

MARSHALL FISHER and
JIM HOOD

RESPONDENTS

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO STAY
On February 26, 2018, Respondents filed a motion to stay this capital federal habeas action
pending the outcome of Petitioner’s June 23, 2016, motion in the Circuit Court of Union County
challenging his 1999 conviction and sentence for possession of a controlled substance. Doc. #81.1
Petitioner filed a response indicating he does not oppose the motion to stay. Doc. #82.
I
Discussion
In Ground IV of his federal habeas petition before this Court, Petitioner claims his trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the validity of his 1999 conviction in the Circuit
Court of Union County for possession of marijuana, for which he was sentenced to one year of
house arrest and two years of probation, and for which he was ordered to pay associated court
costs, restitution, and probation fees. See generally Doc. #13 at 51–57. According to Petitioner,
the money he owed to the State due to his possession conviction formed the basis in this case for
the State’s proposed motive (i.e., that financial hardship was the reason Petitioner committed
murder), and the conviction itself was used to prove an aggravating circumstance at the penalty

1
Respondents’ motion is titled, “Motion to Stay Habeas Corpus Proceedings Pending Resolution of Petitioner’s
Interrelated State Habeas Challenge of Conviction and Sentence of Possession of a Controlled Substance.”

phase of his capital murder trial.
Petitioner’s pending state court motion argues that (1) his conviction for possession of
marijuana is void because he was a youth at the time he pled to the offense; (2) his sentence
exceeded statutory authority; and (3) his fundamental right to be free from an unlawful conviction
and sentence vitiates any procedural bar that might otherwise prevent consideration of his claim.
Doc. #81-1 at 2. A hearing on the state court motion is scheduled for April 6, 2018. Doc. #812.
Because it is undisputed that the outcome of the pending state court proceedings overlaps
with the merits of the instant habeas petition, judicial economy requires that Petitioner’s federal
habeas proceedings be stayed pending the resolution of the state court motion. See, e.g., Rhines
v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005) (court should grant stay “if the petitioner had good cause for
his failure to exhaust, his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and there is no indication
that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics”); Brewer v. Johnson, 139
F.3d 491, 493 (5th Cir. 1998) (district court has discretion to stay federal habeas action pending
resolution of state proceedings).
II
Conclusion
Respondents’ motion to stay [81] is GRANTED and this case is STAYED.2 Respondents
must file a motion to lift the stay within thirty (30) days of the resolution of Petitioner’s pending
state court motion.
SO ORDERED, this 21st day of March, 2018.
/s/Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

For statistical purposes, the Clerk of the Court is directed to designate this case as closed.