Martin v. NH State Prison, Warden
Filing
15
///ORDER granting 12 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 14 Motion for Subpoena. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Clerk shall enter judgment and close the case. So Ordered by Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.(gla)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Ronald W. Martin
v.
Civil No. 17-cv-408-JD
Opinion No. 2019 DNH 007
Warden, New Hampshire
State Prison for Men
O R D E R
Ronald W. Martin, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
challenging the sentences imposed in his state court case.
The
Warden moves to dismiss the petition, arguing that Martin has
not raised grounds to support habeas relief.
Martin objects.
Standard of Review
A party may move to dismiss an action for “failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
12(b)(6).1
Fed. R. Civ. P.
In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6), the court accepts as true all of the properly pleaded
facts and draws reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving
party.
Lemelson v. Bloomberg L.P., 903 F.3d 19, 23 (1st Cir.
2018).
The court does not credit “legal labels or conclusions,
“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that
they are not inconsistent with any statutory provisions or these
rules, may be applied to a proceeding under these rules.” Rule
12, Rule Governing Section 2254 Cases.
1
or statements that merely rehash elements of the cause of
action.”
Id.
Based on the properly pleaded facts and
reasonable inferences taken from those facts, the court
determines whether the petitioner alleges a plausible claim for
relief.
Id.
Background
Martin was convicted, following a jury trial in state
court, on one charge of felonious sexual assault and three
charges of aggravated felonious sexual assault, which crimes
occurred between August 10, 1984, and February 19, 1991.
He was
sentenced to three prison terms of not more than fifteen years
nor less than seven and one-half years and one term of not more
than seven years nor less than three and one-half years.
The
four prison terms are to be served consecutively.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed Martin’s
conviction on July 6, 2017.
Proceeding pro se, Martin filed a
habeas petition in this court on September 12, 2017.
Martin
then moved to stay the proceeding here to allow him time to
exhaust issues in state court.
His motion was granted, and the
case was stayed.
Martin filed a motion in Merrimack County Superior Court to
vacate his sentences and to remand his case for resentencing.
In support, Martin argued that under the version of RSA 651-A:6,
2
II in effect when he committed the initial crime in 1984, he
should be eligible for parole after serving the minimum amount
of his longest sentence, seven and one-half years.
He argued
that his consecutive sentences did not comply with that version
of the statute.
The state objected.
The court denied Martin’s motion to vacate his sentence.2
State v. Martin, 217-2015-CR-00314; 211-2015-CR-00174 (Merrimack
Cty. Sup. Ct. Dec. 2, 2017).
The court explained that the New
Hampshire Supreme Court had interpreted the 1991 version of RSA
651-A:6 in an unreported decision, Blackstock v. Executive
Assistant, Adult Parole Board, No. 2014-0720, 2016 WL 4103620,
at *6 (N.H. Supreme Ct. June 9, 2016), and determined that the
statute did not establish a minimum parole date, contrary to
Martin’s theory.
The court also explained that because Martin
could be paroled to his next consecutive sentence, even if he
became eligible for parole after serving seven and one-half
years, his consecutive sentences were not unlawfully imposed.
On appeal, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the
superior court decision.
State v. Martin, 2018-0063 (N.H.
Supreme Ct. Sept. 14, 2018).
The supreme court rejected
Martin’s interpretation of RSA 651-A:6, II and agreed with
The judge who presided during Martin’s trial and
sentencing heard his motion to vacate his sentence.
2
3
Blackstock and the superior court’s ruling.
The supreme court
also held, agreeing with the superior court, that the 1991
amendment to RSA 651-A:6, II did not make any change that was
material to Martin’s claims.
In addition, the supreme court
affirmed the superior court’s authority to impose consecutive
sentences.3
On October 15, 2018, Martin moved to lift the stay in this
court and provided an addendum to his petition.
His motion was
granted.
In support of his petition for habeas relief under § 2254,
Martin contends that based on the Fourteenth Amendment due
process clause and Department of Corrections Policy and
Procedure Directives he was entitled to be sentenced in accord
with the statutory provisions in effect at the time of his
charged offenses in 1984.
He further argues that the 1991
amendments cannot be applied to him because that would result in
a violation of the ex post facto clause.
He contends that the
version of RSA 651-A:6, II in effect in 1984 would set his
eligibility for parole after he served seven and one-half years
of his prison terms.
Martin contends in his addendum to his
petition that the superior court and the supreme court erred in
The supreme court further held that because Martin failed
to provide the pleadings that he submitted to the trial court,
it would not consider any other issues that he may have raised.
3
4
their interpretations of RSA 651-A:6, II and Blackstock and that
his interpretation is correct.
He also contends that those
courts made other errors in their decisions.
Discussion
The Warden moves to dismiss Martin’s petition on the
grounds that there is no constitutional right to parole;
Martin’s challenge based on RSA 651-A:6, II raises an issue of
the correct interpretation of a state statute; and Martin has
defaulted any other federal claims by failing to properly raise
them on appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Martin
objects to the motion on procedural grounds, asserting that the
Warden did not comply with the court’s order issued on October
18, 2018, and that the Warden should not have filed a copy of
the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision in his direct appeal.
On the substantive issues, Martin contends that he has a liberty
interest in parole which is protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment; that it is illegal under his interpretation of RSA
651-A:6, II and other statutes and administrative provisions to
parole him into consecutive sentences; and that he properly
preserved his claims before the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
5
A.
Procedural Objections
Martin contends that the court should “default” the Warden
because the Warden did not abide by the order issued on October
18, 2018.
Martin does not explain what he perceives to be
noncompliant.
Because he references the date he received the
motion, December 21, 2018, he may think that the motion was
untimely.
He also mentions a copy of the New Hampshire Supreme
Court’s decision on his direct appeal that was filed by the
Warden.
In the October 18 order, the magistrate judge directed the
Warden “to file an answer or motion to dismiss the claims in the
petition and in the addendum (Doc. Nos. 1, 9), within ninety
days of this Order.”
Doc. no. 10, at *1.
The Warden filed the
motion to dismiss on December 20, 2018, well within the ninetyday time.
Therefore, the motion is not untimely.
Martin faults the Warden for filing a copy of the New
Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision on his direct appeal with the
motion to dismiss.
If Martin believes that was a violation of
the October 18 order, he has not explained why.
While Martin
states that the filed opinion “has not yet been presented to
this Honorable Court,” he does not explain what he means or why
that is a problem.
Martin provides no procedural grounds to deny the motion.
6
B.
Motion to Dismiss Martin’s Claims
Under § 2254, a petition may be granted only in two
circumstances.
The first ground for habeas relief exists if the
state court proceedings “resulted in a decision that was
contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly
established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of
the United States.”
§ 2254(d)(1).
The second ground exists if
the state court proceedings “resulted in a decision that was
based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of
the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
§ 2254(d)(2).
1.
Exhausted Claims
In this case, Martin challenges the New Hampshire Supreme
Court’s interpretation of § 651-A:6, II, a state law, and the
imposition of consecutive sentences under state law.
He has not
shown or even argued that the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s
decision is contrary to or an unreasonable application of
federal law, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.4
To the extent Martin argues that he has a liberty interest
in parole that is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, it
appears that claim was not raised in the state court
proceedings. Even if such a claim could be raised in the
context of a § 2254 petition and if Martin’s interpretation of
RSA 651-A:6, II were applied, he would not yet be eligible for
parole and has no such liberty interest. See Griffin v. N.H.
Dep’t of Corrs., 2017 WL 4404400, at *3 (D.N.H. Sept. 21, 2017).
4
7
Instead, his claim is based entirely on state law and state
administrative rules.
He contends that the New Hampshire
Supreme Court erred in affirming the superior court’s
interpretation of RSA 651-A:6, II and the ruling that
consecutive sentences are legal.5
The New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision cannot be
appealed to this court.
See Klimowicz v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l
Tr. Co., 907 F.3d 61, 64 (1st Cir. 2018) (“The Rooker-Feldman
doctrine preserves the Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction
over appeals from final state-court judgments.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)).
Further, when applying New Hampshire
law, this court is bound by the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s
teachings.
See Johnson v. Fankell, 520 U.S. 911, 916 (1997); N.
Am. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Lapalme, 258 F.3d 35, 38 (1st Cir.
2001).
Therefore, Martin has not alleged a claim for relief
under § 2254 based on the state courts’ interpretation and
application of RSA § 651-A, II and the imposition of consecutive
sentences.
Because Martin presents only a legal issue, there is no
claim based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.
5
8
2.
Procedurally Defaulted Claims
To the extent Martin may have presented other claims to the
trial court, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that those
claims were not properly preserved.6
Specifically, the supreme
court held that it would not review any issue that Martin had
not raised before the trial court, citing Supreme Court Rule
16(3)(b) and State v. Wilson, 169 N.H. 755, 768 (2017).
Because
it was Martin’s burden to provide the record on appeal to show
what issues had been preserved and Martin failed to provide any
of the pleadings submitted to the trial court, the supreme court
declined to address other arguments raised in his brief.
Federal habeas review is precluded by procedural default
when “the state court declined to address a prisoner’s federal
claims because the prisoner had failed to meet a state
procedural requirement.”
(1991).
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750
A state-court decision not to address a claim is
preclusive if the decision “‘rests on a state law ground that is
independent of the federal question and adequate to support the
judgment.’”
Lee v. Corsini, 777 F.3d 46, 54 (1st Cir. 2015)
Martin submitted his state court motion to vacate his
sentences and for resentencing as an exhibit to the addendum to
his petition in this case. The motion focuses on Martin’s
interpretation of RSA 651-A:6, II and the effect of consecutive
sentences and does not appear to raise any other claims or
issues.
6
9
(quoting Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307, 315 (2011)).
A
petitioner can avoid the effect of procedural default by showing
an adequate cause for the default and actual prejudice or
innocence.
Berthoff v. United States, 308 F.3d 124, 127-28 (1st
Cir. 2002).
Martin asserts that he has demonstrated here what claims
were exhausted in state court, argues that the New Hampshire
Supreme Court’s instructions did not require him to file his
motion from the trial court, and disputes the supreme court’s
decision that he defaulted other claims.
Martin, however, does
not identify what other claims he raised in the trial court that
the supreme court failed to address.
Instead, his objection to
the motion to dismiss focuses on the interpretation and
application of RSA 651-A:6, II and the legality of consecutive
sentences, which were addressed by the New Hampshire Supreme
Court.
Martin does not raise cause and actual prejudice for his
default.
Therefore, if Martin intended to raise claims here that
were not considered by the New Hampshire Supreme Court, those
claims were procedurally defaulted.
cannot be considered under § 2254.
10
For that reason, they
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Warden’s motion to dismiss
(document no. 12) is granted.
Martin’s motion for subpoenas (document no. 14) is denied
as moot.
Martin has not made a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
Therefore, the
court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
The clerk of court shall enter judgment accordingly and
close the case.
SO ORDERED.
______________________________
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
January 10, 2019
cc:
Ronald W. Martin, pro se
Elizabeth C. Woodcock, Esq.
11
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?