Harris v. Harris

• Decision Date: 07 February 2023
• Docket Number: 4:14-CV-01344-AGF
• Parties: CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY HARRIS, JR., Petitioner, v. BILL HARRIS, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY HARRIS, JR., Petitioner,
v.
BILL HARRIS, Respondent.

No. 4:14-CV-01344-AGF

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

February 7, 2023

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Christopher Anthony Harris Jr.'s (“Harris”) petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and Respondent Bill Harris's (“Respondent”) motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust state court remedies and procedural default. Harris's petition challenges the revocation of his probation on June 18, 2014. For the reasons set forth below, the petition for writ of habeas corpus will be denied and dismissed without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

Criminal Proceedings

Harris's probation revocation was related to three underlying criminal convictions for identity theft and possession of controlled substances. Harris plead guilty in all three matters. On May 18, 2012, Harris received a seven-year suspended execution of sentence and a three-year term of probation for possession of a controlled substance in State v. Harris, No. 0811-CR04580-01. On that same day, Harris received a seven-year

1

suspended execution of sentence and a five-year term of probation for a separate possession of a controlled substance conviction in State v. Harris, No. 1111-CR03930-01. On September 13, 2010, Harris received a seven-year suspended execution of sentence and a five-year term of probation for identity theft in State v. Harris, No. 0911-CR04596-01.

On June 18, 2014, Harris's probation on all three cases was revoked and he was sentenced to seven years at the Missouri Department of Corrections.

Federal Habeas Petition

On July 31, 2014, Harris filed a pro se federal habeas petition under § 2254. His petition claims that his probation was wrongly revoked because (1) the court failed to offer Harris any alternatives to incarceration; (2) the court failed to consider exculpatory evidence; (3) the court failed to provide Harris with written notice of his violations and bases for revocation; and (4) the court failed to provide a written statement regarding its finding that Harris forged a doctor's note. (Doc. No. 1). Harris's petition did not challenge his underlying convictions.

On August 11, 2014, the Court ordered the Respondent to show cause in writing why Harris's habeas petition should not be granted. (Doc. No. 3). On September 25, 2014, the Respondent filed his response, arguing that Harris had failed to exhaust his state-court remedies as required. (Doc. No. 6). On June 9, 2017, this Court issued an order staying all proceedings so that Harris could exhaust any remaining state-court remedies. (Doc. No. 9).

2

State Exhaustion

On August 15, 2017, after the stay was issued, Harris filed a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus in St. Charles County.^[1] Harris v. Harris, Case No. 1711-CC00810. Respondent filed a response, but the state case was ultimately dismissed for failure to prosecute on June 26, 2018. (Doc. Nos. 17-1, 17-2). Upon this dismissal, Harris did not petition for relief in a higher court, as he was permitted to do, nor has Harris filed any other state court actions.

On April 22, 2016, Harris was paroled. He was discharged from parole on January 22, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 17-3, 17-4).

Motion to Dismiss

On July 13, 2022, this Court ordered Respondent to file a status report advising the Court of the status of Harris's state post-conviction proceedings and whether Harris remained in custody. (Doc. No. 15).

On August 17, 2022, Respondent advised the Court of the above state-court proceedings and Harris's parole and termination of parole. Respondent also filed a motion to dismiss Harris's federal habeas petition on the grounds of mootness, failure to exhaust state court remedies, and procedural default. (Doc. No. 17).

Respondent argues that Harris's petition is now moot because Harris is no longer in Respondent's custody, the Court can no longer issue effective relief, nor are there are

3

any collateral consequences at stake. Respondent also argues that even if the issues are not moot, the petition should be dismissed due to Harris's failure to exhaust his state court remedies. Lastly, Respondent argues that Harris has procedurally defaulted on his ability to seek state-court relief because he is no longer incarcerated and has been discharged from parole.

On August 15, 2022, Harris filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 19). His response did not directly address the arguments. In response to the mootness argument, Harris appears to attack the validity of his underlying convictions for the first time, arguing that he was advised by ineffective counsel in all in all three of his cases to plead guilty. He does not explain how his counsel was ineffective beyond stating that his possession of a controlled substance conviction under Case No. 1111-CR03930 would not be considered a felony by today's law.

In response to the failure to exhaust state court remedies argument, Harris states that he tried to appeal his probation revocation when he was initially incarcerated in June 2014, but his attorney was denied access to visit him in jail. Doc. No. 19 at 3 (“My lawyer was denied a visit to me to start the appeal proceedings. The visitor log would show this valid, he stated the St. Charles County Jail communicated that their internal computer system was not operating properly.”)

Lastly, in response to the procedural default argument, Harris argues that he could not afford an appeal nor was there any possible course of action where he could appeal the revocation of his probation because he was...