Adc v. Kelley

• Decision Date: 27 February 2018
• Docket Number: 5:17-CV-00158-DPM/JTR
• Parties: JAMES R. GRIFFIN ADC #162792 PETITIONER v. WENDY KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

JAMES R. GRIFFIN ADC #162792 PETITIONER v. WENDY KELLEY, Director,Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT

5:17-CV-00158-DPM/JTR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION

February 27, 2018

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

The following Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to United States District Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Recommendation. The failure to timely file objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.

I. Background

Pending before the Court is a § 2254 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner, James R. Griffin ("Griffin"). Doc. 1. Before addressing Griffin's habeas claims, the Court will review the procedural history of the case in state court.

On January 11, 2016, Griffin appeared, with counsel, in the Circuit Court of Craighead County, Arkansas, and, pursuant to a negotiated plea, pleaded guilty to one count of rape and two counts of sexual assault in the second degree. State of Arkansas v. James R. Griffin, Craighead County Circuit Court Case No. CR 2015-0751 ("state criminal case").¹ Griffin was sentenced to an aggregate term of 360 months imprisonment. Docs. 5-1, 5-2.

Griffin did not pursue a direct appeal from his convictions.² Griffin also did not pursue post-conviction relief under Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure.³

On August 17, 2016, Griffin filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in the state criminal case. Doc. 5-4. On April 21, 2017, having received no ruling on his pending petition, Griffin filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Arkansas Supreme Court. Doc. 5-5. On April 28, 2017, the Craighead County Circuit Court entered an Order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, holding that the alleged basis for relief was not cognizable. Doc. 5-6.

On May 18, 2017, Griffin appealed the Craighead County Circuit Court's denial of a writ of error coram nobis to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

On June 8, 2017, Griffin, proceeding pro se, initiated this § 2254 action.⁴ In his Petition, he alleges three grounds for relief:

(1) he is actually innocent of rape, as demonstrated by the original police report and investigative statements from all interested parties;

(2) his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to discover, from facts readily available in the police file, information helpful to the defense and in failing to challenge the prosecution's version of the facts; and

(3) his rape conviction was obtained in violation of his due process rights because it was obtained through fraud, duress, and mistake on the part of the prosecution team, defense counsel, and the trial court.

On January 18, 2018, the Arkansas Supreme Court held the Griffin's request for an extension of time to file a brief in support of his pending petition for writ of error coram nobis was moot because it was clear from the record that Griffin could not prevail on appeal. ⁵ In doing so, the Court noted that Griffin could not prevail on appeal because "none of the claims were cognizable in a coram nobis petition." Exhibit A at 1.

Respondent argues that all of Griffin's habeas claims are procedurally defaulted. Doc. 5. Griffin has filed a Reply. Doc. 8. Thus, the issues are joined and ripe for resolution.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied, and the case dismissed, with prejudice.

II. Discussion

A habeas petitioner must "fairly present" his claims in state court before seeking § 2254 relief in federal court. Murphy v. King, 652 F.3d 845-848-49 (8th Cir. 2011); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) ("An application for a writ of habeas corpus ... shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State"); Perry v. Kemna, 356 F.3d 880, 886 (8th Cir. 2004) ("To avoid a procedural default, a habeas petitioner must 'present the same facts and legal theories to the state court that he later presents to the federal courts.'"); Miller v. Lock, 108 F.3d 868, 871 (8th Cir. 1997) ("[B]oth the factual grounds and legal theories on which the claim is based must have been presented to the highest state court in order to preserve the claim for federal review.").

By exhausting all available state court remedies, a habeas petitioner gives the State that convicted him an "'opportunity to pass upon and correct' alleged violations of its prisoners' federal rights." Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (per curiam).

When a petitioner fails to fully exhaust his claims in state court and the time for doing so has expired, his claims are procedurally defaulted. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731-32 (1991). When a procedural default occurs, federal habeas review of the claim is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate "cause" for the default and "actual prejudice" as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider his claim will result in a "fundamental miscarriage of justice." Id. at 750.

Respondent argues that all of Griffin's habeas claims are procedurally defaulted because none of the claims he now asserts were fully exhausted in state court and the time for doing so has expired. Alternatively, Respondent argues the claims should be denied on the merits. The Court agrees that Griffin's claims are either inexcusably procedurally defaulted or fail on the merits.

Griffin acknowledges that he failed to seek Rule 37 relief, but he contends that his petition for error coram nobis was a "proper vehicle" for challenging his guilty plea because it was obtained "through fear, duress, and threat." While a writ of coram nobis may issue to remedy "a coerced guilty plea," "allegations made in support of error coram nobis that are premised on ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are not cognizable in error coram nobis proceedings." Nelson v. State, 2014 Ark. 91, *5; see also Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315, 317, 219 S.W.3d 123 (Ark. 2005) (per curiam) (state habeas corpus challenge to validity of guilty plea shouldhave been brought in a timely filed Rule 37 petition for post-conviction relief). Additionally, the Arkansas Supreme Court does not accept a petitioner's allegation that his claim involves a coerced guilty plea. Instead, the court "looks to the true nature of a petitioner's claim." Nelson v. State, 2014 Ark. 91 at *5 (concluding that Nelson's claim, while couched in terms of a coerced guilty plea, was actually based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel). Here, the Circuit Court, which rejected Griffin's writ or error coram nobis as being premised solely on "having been ineffectively represented" by his counsel, construed all of Griffin's challenges to his plea as rooted in his attorney's alleged errors. Doc. 5-6.

On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled initially that none of Griffin's claims were cognizable. Exhibit A at p. 1. This is consistent with the Circuit Court's ruling. However, as to Griffin's claim that his guilty plea was coerced, the Court went on to hold that he failed to meet his burden of presenting evidence in support of that claim. Exhibit A at p. 3. To the extent that the Arkansas Supreme Court's ruling could be construed as rejecting, on the merits, Griffin's claim that his plea was coerced, the claim is not procedurally defaulted and may be addressed on the merits. However, the claim still fails because Griffin has not established either of the two limited circumstances that would permit him to obtain federal habeas relief.⁶Thus, Griffin's argument that he properly asserted that his plea was coerced in his coram nobis petition will not save this claim, which is either procedurally defaulted or fails on the merits.

As to Griffin's procedurally defaulted claims, the Court still may proceed to address the merits of those claims if he can demonstrate the "cause and prejudice" or "actual innocence" exceptions to procedural default. See Washington v. Delo, 51 F.3d 756, 760 (8th Cir.1995) (cause and prejudice exception generally requires a showing of "some external impediment" that prevented the raising of a habeas claim, and that the "obstacle caused actual prejudice."); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327, (1995) (actual innocence exception requires a petitioner to show that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of the new evidence."). If a habeas petitioner does not establish cause, there is no need to consider whether he has established prejudice. Sherron v. Norris, 69 F.3d 285, 289 (8th Cir. 1995).

Griffin argues that his appeal of the denial of a petition for a writ of error coram nobis was "illegally thwarted" in state court. This conclusory assertion failsto address or explain why Griffin did not fairly and properly present his claims in state court.⁷ Accordingly, this bare allegation is insufficient to establish cause.

Griffin also argues that the state court lacked jurisdiction to issue the Judgment and Commitment Order. For cause, Griffin points to Respondent's statement that a recording of the state court change of plea hearing had yet to be located and might not be available. Doc. 5 at 1-2, n. 1. However, Respondent later advised the Court that a recording of the guilty-plea colloquy had been located and was available. Doc. 9. Respondent's initial uncertainty as to the availability of the plea hearing transcript has no bearing on the state court's jurisdiction or Griffin's procedural default.

Griffin's generalized and sweeping allegations fail to establish "cause" to excuse his procedural default.⁸ Nor can Griffin's pro se status and any unfamiliarity with the law or...