Hargis v. Lewis
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Ronald M. Hargis. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Ronald M. Hargis for a writ of habeas corpus relief is DENIED. A separate judgment will be entered herewith.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall not be issued. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 8/20/20. (CSG)
Case: 1:17-cv-00172-AGF Doc. #: 14 Filed: 08/20/20 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: 642
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
RONALD M. HARGIS,
Petitioner,
v.
JASON LEWIS,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:17-CV-00172-AGF
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the pro se petition of Missouri state prisoner
Ronald M. Hargis for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner
was convicted of first-degree burglary, first-degree robbery, three counts of armed
criminal action, and two counts of first-degree assault as an accomplice in a home
invasion by multiple perpetrators. In his federal habeas petition, Petitioner asserts that
there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly
participated in the crime. For the reasons set forth below, the petition must be denied as
untimely.
BACKGROUND
A jury trial was held in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County on December 9
through 11, 2014. After guilty verdicts on all counts, Petitioner was sentenced to eight
years for burglary consecutive to concurrent sentences of twelve years on the remaining
counts, for a total sentence of twenty years. Petitioner challenged his convictions on
direct appeal, arguing that there was insufficient evidence from which the jury could find
1
Case: 1:17-cv-00172-AGF Doc. #: 14 Filed: 08/20/20 Page: 2 of 5 PageID #: 643
him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
On August 16, 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming
the judgment, reasoning that there was substantial evidence presented at trial showing
Petitioner’s guilt of the crimes charged under a theory of accomplice liability. ECF No.
10, Ex. 5. Petitioner did not file a motion for rehearing or transfer to the Missouri
Supreme Court. ECF No. 10, Ex. 10. The appellate court’s mandate issued September 7,
2016. 1
Petitioner filed a pro-se motion for post-conviction relief in the state court on
December 12, 2016, i.e., 96 days after the mandate. ECF No. 10, Ex. 6. Petitioner
subsequently obtained appointed counsel and filed an amended motion on May 17, 2017.
ECF No. 10, Ex. 7. The state responded with a motion to dismiss Petitioner’s claim as
untimely. ECF No. 10, Ex. 8. The trial court granted that motion and dismissed
Petitioner’s motion with prejudice because his pro se motion was filed past the 90-day
deadline, 2 and neither his pro se motion nor his amended motion claimed that the delay
was attributable to third party interference. ECF No. 10, Ex. 9.
Petitioner filed his federal pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court on
September 13, 2017, by placing it in the prison mail system. ECF No. 1 at 16. As his
sole ground for federal habeas relief, Petitioner again asserts that there was insufficient
1
Respondent’s brief and Petitioner’s reply state that the appellate mandate issued on
September 8, 2016. The docket sheet appearing on Missouri CaseNet, as well as the
mandate itself, confirm that it issued September 7. ECF No. 10, Ex. 10. The state court’s
order dismissing Petitioner’s post-conviction motion as untimely correctly states that the
mandate issued September 7. ECF No. 10, Ex. 9.
2
Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 29.15(b).
2
Case: 1:17-cv-00172-AGF Doc. #: 14 Filed: 08/20/20 Page: 3 of 5 PageID #: 644
evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly participated in the crimes
for which he was convicted.
Respondent asserts that the petition is untimely as it was filed beyond the one-year
statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Respondent contends the
limitations period began to run on August 31, 2016, fifteen days after Petitioner’s
conviction was affirmed by the Missouri Court of Appeals, and thus ended one year later,
on August 31, 2017. Further, on the merits, Respondent argues that the Missouri Court
of Appeals already considered and rejected Petitioner’s theory of insufficient evidence,
and the decision is entitled to deference and should not be disturbed.
DISCUSSION
The Court agrees that the petition is untimely. Under the Anti-Terrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Congress established a one-year statute
of limitations period for petitioners seeking federal habeas relief from state court
judgments. Finch v. Miller, 491 F.3d 424, 426 (8th Cir. 2007). In this case, the one-year
statute of limitations began to run on the date Petitioner’s judgment became final,
meaning the date on which the time for seeking review in the Missouri Supreme Court
expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 150 (2012).
Because Petitioner did not seek rehearing or transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court, his
limitations period began to run 15 days after the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed his
conviction on direct appeal, thus August 31, 2016. See Camacho v. Hobbs, 774 F.3d 931,
935 (8th Cir. 2015) (stating that when a petitioner foregoes state appeals, the court must
look to state-court filing deadlines to determine the expiration of the time for seeking
3
Case: 1:17-cv-00172-AGF Doc. #: 14 Filed: 08/20/20 Page: 4 of 5 PageID #: 645
direct review); Mo. S.Ct. Rule 83.02 (“Application by a party for such transfer shall be
filed within fifteen days of the date on which the opinion, memorandum decision, written
order, or order of dismissal is filed.”).
In his reply (ECF No. 11), Petitioner concedes that his motion for post-conviction
relief in state court was untimely but argues that his habeas claim is still timely because
the one-year statute of limitations did not begin to run until December 8, 2016, i.e., 90
days after the appellate court’s mandate and also the deadline for filing a writ of certiorari
in the United States Supreme Court. This is not correct. As the Supreme Court explained
in Gonzalez, for petitioners who do not seek certiorari, the judgment becomes final at the
expiration of the time for seeking review in the state’s highest court. Gonzalez, 565 U.S.
at 150.
Petitioner had 15 days after the date of the opinion to file an application for
rehearing or transfer to the Supreme Court of Missouri, thus August 31, 2016. He did not
do so. Petitioner had 90 days after the mandate, or until December 6, 2016, to file his
motion for post-conviction relief in state court. Petitioner did not file his motion until
December 12, 2016, so it was untimely and could not be entertained. Petitioner’s invalid
post-conviction motion is therefore disregarded for purposes of finality and does not
operate to suspend the statute of limitations for habeas relief. See McMullan v. Roper,
599 F.3d 849, 853 (8th Cir. 2010) (observing that a post-conviction motion tolls the
statute of limitations for habeas relief only when the motion was “properly filed,”
meaning in compliance with applicable rules). As such, the judgment became final on
August 31, 2016, and the one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas relief expired
4
Case: 1:17-cv-00172-AGF Doc. #: 14 Filed: 08/20/20 Page: 5 of 5 PageID #: 646
on August 31, 2017. As Petitioner did not file his petition until September 25, 2017, it is
untimely.
CONCLUSION
The Court concludes that Petitioner’s petition must be denied as untimely under 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The Court does not believe that reasonable jurists might find the
Court’s assessment debatable for purposes of issuing a Certificate of Appealability under
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773 (2017) (standard for
issuing a Certificate of Appealability) (citing Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336
(2003)).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Ronald M. Hargis for a writ of
habeas corpus relief is DENIED. A separate judgment will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall not be
issued.
_______________________________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 20th day of August 2020.
5
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?