Williams v. State of Mississippi et al
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 12 Final Judgment. Signed by Debra M. Brown on 2/18/14. (cr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
REUBEN WILLIAMS,
PETITIONER
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:13cv222-DMB-SAA
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI and ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI,
RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Reuben1 Williams, Mississippi prisoner no. 13546, has filed a pro se federal
habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his State court conviction for
aggravated domestic violence. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the State court
record, and the law applicable to Williams’ claims, the Court finds that the petition should be
denied, for the reasons that follow.
Background Facts and Procedural History
In May of 2010, Reuben Williams was indicted in the Circuit Court of Leflore County,
Mississippi, on one count of rape, one count of felon in possession of a firearm, one count of
aggravated domestic assault, and one count of kidnapping. The charges stemmed from an April
15, 2009, incident in which Williams attacked the mother of his two children. After plea
negotiations, Williams pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated domestic violence in exchange
for the dismissal of the remaining charges. By order filed on February 4, 2011, he was sentenced
to serve twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”),
1
The Court notes that the Mississippi Department of Corrections lists the petitioner’s
first name as “Rueben.” See http://www.mdoc.state.ms.us/ (follow “Inmate Search” hyperlink;
search “Rueben Williams”) (last visited February 18, 2014).
1
with fifteen years to serve and five years of post-release supervision. (See Answer, Ex. A).
By statute, there is no direct appeal from a guilty plea. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-35101. Williams did, however, file a motion for post-conviction relief in the Leflore County
Circuit Court on September 20, 2011, and the circuit court denied the motion by order filed on
April 13, 2012. (See Answer, Ex. B). Williams appealed the denial of his post-conviction
motion to the Mississippi Supreme Court, which assigned the case to the Mississippi Court of
Appeals. On July 30, 2013, the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the
circuit court. (See Answer, Ex. C); see also Williams v. State, 119 So. 3d 404 (Miss. Ct. App.
2013), reh’g denied, November 5, 2013 (Case No. 2012-CP-00411-COA). Williams did not file
a petition for writ of certiorari to the Mississippi Supreme Court. (See Answer, Ex. D).
On or about October 30, 2013, Williams filed the instant federal habeas petition raising
the following grounds for relief, as stated by Williams:
Ground One:
Ground Two:
Ground Three:
Ground Four:
Dismissed deadly weapon from charge and indictment.
Reuben Williams constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated.
Ineffective assistance of counsel.
Excessive sentencing cruel and unusual punishment.
In their answer, Respondents claim that Williams has failed to exhaust his State court remedies
as to the claims in the instant petition, and as such, his claims are not properly before the Court.
Williams has failed to submit a reply.
Legal Standard
Generally, a petitioner must exhaust his available state court remedies as a prerequisite to
seeking federal habeas relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) and (c); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526
U.S. 838, 840 (1999). The exhaustion requirement is satisfied when the habeas claim has been
presented to the highest state court in a procedurally proper manner. Nobles v. Johnson, 127
2
F.3d 409, 420 (5th Cir. 1997). If a petitioner fails to exhaust his claims prior to seeking federal
habeas relief, his federal habeas petition must ordinarily be dismissed. See Coleman v.
Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); see also Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 157, 178-79 (2001)
(“The exhaustion requirement of § 2254(b) ensures that the state courts have the opportunity
fully to consider federal-law challenges to a state custodial judgment before the lower federal
courts may entertain a collateral attack upon that judgment.”).
Where a petitioner files a petition containing some exhausted claims and some
unexhausted claims, a federal district court must typically dismiss the “mixed petition” in its
entirety. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982). However, a petitioner may, in limited
circumstances, file a protective federal habeas petition and request that the habeas court stay his
action and hold the petition in abeyance while he exhausts his claims in state court. See Pace v.
DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416-17 (2005). Such a stay is only appropriate, however, if the
petitioner shows (1) good cause for his failure to exhaust, (2) his unexhausted claims are not
plainly meritless, and (3) there is no indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally
dilatory litigation tactics. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-278 (2005).
Discussion
Under Mississippi law, an appellant who is displeased with the decision of the
Mississippi Court of Appeals must file a motion for rehearing with that court, and if the result of
the rehearing proceeding is dissatisfactory, file a petition for writ of certiorari with the
Mississippi Supreme Court to obtain review of the Court of Appeals decision. See Miss. R. App.
P. 17(b). Rule 17(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that:
A decision of the Court of Appeals is a final decision which is not reviewable by
the Supreme Court except on writ of certiorari. Review on writ of certiorari is not
3
a matter of right, but a matter of judicial discretion. The Supreme Court may
grant a petition for writ of certiorari on the affirmative vote of four of its members
and may, by granting such writ, review any decision of the Court of Appeals.
Successive review of a decision of the Court of Appeals by the Supreme Court
will ordinarily be granted only for the purpose of resolving substantial questions
of law of general significance[.]
***
Notwithstanding the presence of one or more of these factors, the Supreme Court
may decline to grant a petition for certiorari for review of the decision of the Court
of Appeals. The Court may, in the absence of these factors, grant a writ of certiorari.
Rule 17(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure.
While an appellant has no right to review, he or she has the right to seek review. See,
e.g., Cohen v. State, 732 So. 2d 867, 871 (Miss. 1999). In this case, Williams failed to file a
petition for writ of certiorari. His failure to seek discretionary review with the Mississippi
Supreme Court renders the instant claims unexhausted. See, e.g., Richardson v. Procunier, 762
F.2d 429, 431 (5th Cir. 1985) (rejecting argument that discretionary appeal to state supreme court
is unnecessary for the purpose of exhausting state remedies); see also O’Sullivan v. Boerckel,
526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (holding that state prisoner must present his claims to state supreme
court in a petition for discretionary review when that review is part of the state’s ordinary
appellate review). The time to seek certiorari review has long expired. See Miss. R. App. P.
17(b) (requiring petition for writ of certiorari to be filed within fourteen days from the date of
entry of the judgment by the Court of Appeals on the motion for rehearing). Therefore, a return
to State court would be fruitless in this case.
The Court finds that because Williams’ State court remedies were rendered unavailable
by his own failure to properly exhaust his claims, he has procedurally defaulted his claims for
purposes of federal habeas review. See Finley v. Johnson, 243 F.3d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 2001) (“If
a petitioner fails to exhaust his state remedies, but the court to which he would be required to
4
return to meet the exhaustion requirement would now find the claims procedurally barred, then
there has been a procedural default for purposes of federal habeas corpus relief.”). Therefore,
federal habeas review of his claims is precluded unless he can show a cause for his default and
actual prejudice as a result, or that the Court’s failure to address the claims would result in a
miscarriage of justice. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991); Sones v. Hargett, 61
F.3d 410, 418 (5th Cir. 1995).
Williams has not attempted to argue any external “cause” for his default, and the Court
finds that Williams has failed to demonstrate the requisite “cause and prejudice” necessary to
obtain review of his claims. Coleman, 501 U.S. at 753 (“‘[C]ause’ under the cause and prejudice
test must be something external to the petitioner, something that cannot fairly be attributed to
him[.]”). Nor does the Court find that failure to address the claims would result in a miscarriage
of justice. The miscarriage of justice exception is confined to cases of actual innocence “where
the petitioner shows, as a factual matter, that he did not commit the crime of conviction.”
Fairman v. Anderson, 188 F.3d 635, 644 (5th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Williams has not
produced any evidence to show that he meets this exception, and the Court finds it inapplicable,
particularly in light of the fact that Williams pleaded guilty. The instant petition must be
dismissed.
Certificate of Appealability
Williams must obtain a certificate of appealability (“COA”) before appealing this Court’s
decision denying federal habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). A COA will not issue unless
Williams makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” of any claim
rejected on its merits, which he may do by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists would find the
5
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). To obtain a COA on a claim that has
been rejected on procedural grounds, Williams must demonstrate “that jurists of reason would
find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right
and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its
procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Applying this standard, the Court concludes that a
COA should be denied in this case.
Conclusion
It is hereby ordered that Williams’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. A judgment in
accordance with this opinion and order will issue today.
SO ORDERED, THIS the 18th day of February, 2014.
/s/DEBRA M. BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?