Dotson v. Sharp

Decision Date17 April 2015
Docket NumberNO. 4:13cv00731-DPM-JTR,4:13cv00731-DPM-JTR
PartiesANTONIO L. DOTSON PETITIONER v. SHELIA SHARP, Director, Arkansas Department of Community Correction RESPONDENT
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
INSTRUCTIONS

The following Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") have 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. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.

Mail objections to:

Clerk, United States District Court
Eastern District of Arkansas
600 West Capitol Avenue, Room A149
Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
I. Background

Pending before the Court is a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Antonio L. Dotson ("Dotson"),1 challenging his February 2011 convictions from Pulaski County, Arkansas. Doc. 2. Before addressing Dotson's claims, the Court will summarize the procedural history of this case.

On December 6, 1999, police officers arrested Dotson at the Greyhound bus station in North Little Rock. According to the arrest report, he was in possession of approximately thirty-one pounds of suspected marijuana, ten grams of suspected cocaine, and a set of postal scales. The report noted that Dotson had an active parole violation warrant out of New York. Doc. 2 at 16-19.

On February 7, 2000, a criminal information was filed, in Pulaski County Circuit Court, charging Dotson as a habitual offender with: (1) possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) with intent to deliver; (2) possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) with intent to deliver; and (3) possession of drug paraphernalia. Doc. 9-3. On February 14, 2000 a bench warrant was issued to arrest Dotson for the charged offenses. On February 18, 2000, the warrant was served on Dotson in thePulaski County Jail. Dotson I, doc. 23-6.2

On April 3, 2000, Dotson was released on a personal recognizance bond, which included certain conditions of release. Id., doc. 23-7. His trial was set for June 26, 2000. According to Dotson, he was "never released on his own free will" and "never left jail," but was "detained for New York authorities and extradited to New York for a parole violation." Doc. 3 at 2; Doc. 11 at 3; Doc. 12-1 at 31.

On May 10, 2000, Dotson wrote a pro se letter to Pulaski County Circuit Judge John Langston stating that he was incarcerated, on unrelated charges, in the Monroe County Jail in Rochester, New York. He requested that his June 26, 2000 trial be continued until November. Dotson I, doc. 23-9. On May 16, 2000, the trial court forwarded Dotson's May 10, 2000 letter to his Pulaski County public defender for "whatever action you deem appropriate." Id., doc. 23-10. Dotson's June 26, 2000 trial date was never continued.

On June 16, 2000, Dotson was released from the custody of New York authorities. Doc. 9-2 at 26; Doc. 11 at 3; Doc. 12-1 at 25 & 31.

On June 26, 2000, Dotson's public defender appeared for trial in Pulaski County Circuit Court. Because he was unaware that Dotson had been released fromincarceration, he advised the trial court that Dotson was "in jail" in New York. Doc. 2 at 50. The same day, an alias bench warrant was issued to arrest Dotson for failure to appear. Dotson I, doc. 23-12 & doc. 31 at 6 (trial court docket sheet).

On September 13, 2002, and again on October 31, 2008, Dotson's case was "pass[ed] to next call." Id., doc. 31 at 7.

Some time in December 2009, Dotson was arrested by authorities in Tennessee on the failure to appear warrant. On December 22, 2009, he appeared in municipal court in Millington, Tennessee, and executed a waiver of formal extradition to Arkansas. Id., doc. 23-13. On December 31, 2009, the Pulaski County Sheriff served the warrant on Dotson and took him into custody. Id, doc. 23-12 & doc. 1 at 30.

According to the Pulaski County Circuit Court docket sheet, on January 15, 2010, Dotson appeared in the trial court with a public defender for a bond hearing. The court granted a "joint mot[ion] to pass. Id., doc. 31 at 7; Doc. 2 at 51.

On February 25, 2010, the date set for Dotson's bench trial, he appeared in the trial court with a newly retained attorney, who moved to continue. The court granted the motion and set a new trial date of March 15, 2010. Id.

On March 15, 2010, Dotson's attorney filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charges pending in Pulaski County because more than ten years had elapsed sinceDotson's arrest in December 1999.3 The motion further argued that: (1) because the State of Arkansas failed to place a detainer on Dotson, upon receiving his May 10, 2000 letter advising of his whereabouts, the period between June 26, 2000 and December 31, 2009 should not be excluded from the speedy trial calculation based on his "unavailability"; and (2) the May 10, 2000 letter constituted a request for a speedy trial. Id., doc. 23-15. The trial court granted a joint motion to continue the bench trial scheduled for March 15, 2010. Id., doc. 31 at 8; Doc. 2 at 51.

On April 27, 2010, the trial court held a hearing on Dotson's motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that no speedy trial violation occurred because, for purposes of speedy trial calculation under Arkansas's procedural rules, the following periods were excluded: (1) June 26, 2000 (the date Dotson failed to appear for his first scheduled trial) to December 31, 2009 (the date he was extradited to Arkansas on the failure to appear warrant); and (2) January 15, 2010 to April 27, 2010, the time period covered by the continuances granted by the court at Dotson's request.4 Doc. 2 at 51; Doc. 9-2 at 25-26; see Doc. 12-1 at 25-30. The trial court laterentered an order denying Dotson's motion. Dotson I, doc. 23-16.

On May 14, 2010, Dotson's attorney filed a petition for writ of prohibition with the Arkansas Supreme Court, seeking to "prohibit the Pulaski County Circuit Court, Fourth Division, from trying him on this matter" due to violations of Arkansas's speedy trial rules and "constitutional due process requirements," and because the trial court was "wholly without jurisdiction." Id., doc. 23-17.

On August 6, 2010, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued a Formal Order summarily denying, without prejudice, Dotson's petition for writ of prohibition. Id., doc. 23-18.

On October 13, 2010, a new attorney entered an appearance on Dotson's behalf. Id., doc. 31 at 8.

On January 3, 2011, Dotson initiated a § 2254 habeas action in this Court, alleging that he was being detained in violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act ("IAD"), the speedy trial provisions of Ark. R. Crim. P. 28.1, and "his constitutional rights under [the] 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution." Id., doc. 1.

On January 19, 2011, Dotson entered a negotiated guilty plea to: (1) one count of possession of cocaine, reduced from possession with intent to deliver; and (2) one count of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. The prosecutor nolle prossedthe drug paraphernalia charge. Dotson was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment on each of his two convictions, to be served concurrently, with 479 days of jail credit. Doc. 9-2 at 4-8; Doc. 2 at 20-21. On February 11, 2011, Dotson's Judgment and Commitment Order was entered. Doc. 9-2 at 5-8.

On May 10, 2011, Dotson filed a pro se Rule 37 petition in the trial court arguing that: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his lawyers did not move for dismissal of the case under the IAD, request "reconsideration" of the Arkansas Supreme Court's denial of his petition for writ of prohibition, adopt any of his pro se motions,5 raise a speedy trial defense under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act ("UMDDA"), or obtain a ruling on any motions;6 (2) he "should never [have] been tried" under Arkansas's speedy trial rules, the IAD, and the UMDDA; (3) his sentence was "illegal" and denied him "due process and equal protection of the law" under the United States Constitution; and (4) he was denied the right to appeal because the Arkansas Supreme Court did not make any written findingsof fact when it denied his petition for writ of prohibition. Doc. 9-2 at 9-18.7

On August 26, 2011, the trial court entered an order denying Rule 37 relief. Id. at 25-28. In its order, the court summarized its conclusions from the April 27, 2010 hearing on Dotson's speedy trial motion:

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court ruled that the periods of time from June 26, 2000, until December 31, 2009, and January 15, 2010, until April 27, 2010, were excluded from speedy trial computation, and made docket entries to that effect. The Court concluded that after excluding those periods, two hundred seventeen days of the time permitted to try the defendant had elapsed, and one hundred forty-eight days remained for speedy trial purposes. The Court agreed with the State's position that there was no basis upon which to place a detainer against the defendant with New York authorities prior to the issuance of the failure to appear warrant, and that the defendant's failure to appear for trial on June 26, 2000, was of his own volition since he was not incarcerated at that time.

Id. at 26. Based on those conclusions, the trial court went on to hold: (1) the provisions of the IAD were not applicable to Dotson because no detainer was ever placed on him;8 (2) his right to a speedy trial was not violated; and (3) he could have raised the speedy trial issue in a direct appeal, if he had gone to trial and beenconvicted, "but by entering a negotiated plea of guilty he waived the opportunity to do so." Id. at 26-27.

Finally, the trial court concluded that Dotson's...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT