Hall v. State of Missouri

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner must show cause, no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order, why his petition should not be dismissed as time-barred. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Petitioner fails to respond to this Order, the Court will dismiss this action without further proceedings. (Show Cause Response due by 12/1/2016.). Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 11/10/2016. (NEB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ARIZONA HALL, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRIS KOSTER,
Respondent,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16-CV-1528 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the petition of Arizona Hall, Jr., for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition appears to be untimely. So, the
Court will order Petitioner to show cause why it should not be summarily dismissed.
On June 27, 2013, a jury convicted Petitioner of second-degree domestic assault.
Missouri v. Hall, No. 0922-CR01820-01 (City of St. Louis). The court sentenced him to
ten years’ imprisonment. Petitioner is currently on parole.
Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal. On April 1, 2015, the appellate court
affirmed and issued its mandate. Missouri v. Hall, No. ED100615 (Mo. Ct. App.). On
April 20, 2015, Petitioner applied for discretionary review by the Missouri Supreme
Court. However, the Clerk of Court for the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern
District returned the application to Petitioner because it was not timely filed.
Petitioner did not file a motion for postconviction relief under Rule 29.15 of the
Missouri Court Rules.

On January 5, 2016, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the
Missouri Supreme Court. State ex rel. Hall v. Cohen, No. SC95457 (Mo. S.Ct.). The
court denied the petition without comment on March 1, 2016.
Petitioner filed the instant petition on September 21, 2016, which is the date he
placed in the prison mail system.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), a petitioner has one year from the date his
judgment of conviction becomes final within which to file a petition for writ of habeas
corpus. Where, as here, a Missouri petitioner does not properly seek transfer to the
Missouri Supreme Court after direct appeal, his judgment becomes final upon expiration
of the time within which to seek such discretionary review, that is, fifteen days after the
court of appeals issues its opinion.

See Gonzalez v. Thaler, ___ U.S.___, 132 S. Ct.

641 (2012); Mo. S. Ct. R. 83.02.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s judgment of conviction

became final on April 16, 2015.
“The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or
other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall
not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.”

28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(2).
The petition for writ of coram nobis Petitioner filed in the Missouri Supreme
Court did not toll the statute of limitations because it is not a “properly filed application
for State post-conviction or other collateral review” in Missouri. A total of 524 days

2

passed between the date the judgment became final, April 16, 2015, and the date he filed
the instant petition. So, it appears that the petition is untimely.
Even if the petition for writ of error coram nobis were a properly filed application
for postconviction relief, the petition would still be untimely. A total of fifty-seven days
elapsed between January 5, 2016, and March 1, 2016. So, the petition would still be
untimely by 102 days.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner must show cause, no later than
twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order, why his petition should not be
dismissed as time-barred.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Petitioner fails to respond to this Order, the
Court will dismiss this action without further proceedings.
Dated this 10th day of November, 2016.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3