Keller v. Frink et al
Filing
6
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 in full. Mr. Keller's petition 1 is DISMISSED. A certificate ofappealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 8/13/2014. Mailed to Keller. (TAG, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
CV 14-173-M-DLC
JERRY LEE KELLER,
Petitioner,
ORDER
vs.
FILL~'
LEROY KlRKEGARD; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MONTANA,
AUG f 3 201.
c., u.s. District Court
Dtitrfct Of ~NI
MiIIouII
Respondents.
Petitioner Jerry Lee Keller, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this
action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Keller
challenges the revocation of his suspended sentence for aggravated assault and
negligent endangerment contending his sentence is illegal, he was not properly
credited for probation time, and that counsel failed to adequately aid his defense.
United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch entered his Findings and
Recommendation in this matter on May 30, 2014. (Doc. 4.) Judge Lynch
recommends that the Court dismiss the petition and deny a certificate of
appealability ("COA") because all of Keller's claims lack merit. Keller timely
objected, preserving his right to de novo review ofthe specific findings and
1
recommendations to which he objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The portion of the
findings and recommendations not specifically objected to will be reviewed for
clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F .2d
1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). For the reasons stated below, the Court will adopt
Judge Lynch's findings and recommendation in full.
Background
Keller was originally sentenced to serve 15 years in prison with 13 years
suspended for aggravated assault and negligent endangerment on September 29,
1999. Keller served 33 days in jail and then probation prior to his revocation. At
issue is the second revocation of the suspended portion of his sentence on
October 28, 2004 where Keller was re-sentenced to 13 years in prison. Keller was
on probation from October 29,2000, to October 13, 2004, for a total of 1,445 days.
Upon re-sentencing, the trial court gave Keller credit of 820 days for jail and
probation time served prior to the second revocation.
Keller raises two objections to Judge Lynch's findings and recommendation.
Keller's first objection alleges due process violations because his revocation fails to
comply with Montana law. Keller's second objection claims ineffective assistance
of counsel arguing his attorney failed to secure credit for his total probation time
served as part of his re-sentencing. Finally, Keller requests that the Court provide
2
transcripts of his sentence revocation hearing.
I. Illegal Sentence
Keller contends that his sentence is illegal under Montana law and that he
was improperly credited for probation time under a mis-interpretation of the trial
court order. This Court may "entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus on
behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the
ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution laws or treaties of the
United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006). Keller's illegal sentence issue raises state
law questions that were already resolved at the Montana Supreme Court and which
are not subject to federal habeas relief. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68
(1991) ("Today we reemphasize that it is not the province ofa federal habeas court
to reexamine state court determinations on state law questions."); Wisconsin v.
Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 483 (1993) (citations omitted) ("There is no doubt that we
are bound by a state court's construction of a state statute"). And even if the State
had violated state law, Keller would not be entitled to federal habeas relief on this
basis. Wilson v. Corcoran, _ U.S. _, 131 S. Ct. 13, 16 (2010) (per curiam); Lewis
v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990). While Keller alleges no Constitutional claim
subject to federal habeas relief, the Court will review Keller's claims.
3
full.
(2)
Mr. Keller's petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED.
(3)
The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter a judgment of dismissal in
favor of Respondents and against Petitioner by separate document.
(4)
A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
Dated this
'3"'" day of August 2014.
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court
10
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?