Hopkins v. Martin, Case No. 20-CV-0084-TCK-JFJ
| Decision Date | 28 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 20-CV-0084-TCK-JFJ |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma |
| Parties | MARK ANTHONY HOPKINS, Petitioner, v. JIMMY MARTIN, Respondent. |
Petitioner Mark Anthony Hopkins, a state inmate appearing through counsel, commenced this action on February 26, 2020, by filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. 4). Before the Court is respondent's motion (Dkt. 6) to dismiss the habeas petition as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)'s one-year statute of limitations. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants respondent's motion and dismisses the petition for writ of habeas corpus, with prejudice, as barred by the statute of limitations.
Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief from the judgment entered against him in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2013-1068. Represented by counsel, petitioner pleaded guilty in that case to one count of first degree murder, three counts of shooting with intent to kill, and two counts of feloniously pointing a firearm. Dkt. 7-1, at 1-4.1 The trial court found petitioner was competent for purposes of the plea hearing and accepted petitioner's pleas as knowing and voluntary. Id. at 5. On December 12, 2013, the trial court sentenced petitioner to serve life without parole, three life sentences, and two 10-year prison terms. Dkts. 7-2 through 7-7.
Proceeding pro se, petitioner timely moved to withdraw his plea on December 23, 2013, primarily alleging counsel failed to adequately advise him about entering a guilty plea. Dkt. 7-8. Trial counsel filed a motion to withdraw the plea on December 23, 2013, sought leave to withdraw, and asked the court to appoint conflict counsel. Dkt. 7-9. The trial court appointed conflict counsel, held a hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea, and denied the motion in an order filed January 22, 2014. Dkt. 7-10, at 24-25. Petitioner did not pursue a certiorari appeal. Dkt. 4, at 8; Dkt. 7, at 2.
On September 6, 2019, petitioner, represented by the same counsel who appears in this habeas action, filed an application for postconviction relief and brief in support of the application in the District Court of Tulsa County. Dkts. 7-11, 7-12. Petitioner sought relief on three propositions: (1) the trial court lost jurisdiction to accept his plea because the trial court "failed to issue a sufficient order determining competence thus violating due process under the Fourteenth Amendment," (2) petitioner's conflict counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea, in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and (3) petitioner was denied the right to appeal through no fault of his own and should be granted an out-of-time appeal. Dkt. 7-11, at 2-3. The state district court denied postconviction relief on October 11, 2019, petitioner timely filed a postconviction appeal, and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of postconviction relief on January 17, 2019. Dkts. 7-13, 7-14.
Over one year later, on February 26, 2020, petitioner, through counsel, filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. Dkt. 4, at 1. Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief on two grounds: (1) his guilty plea was obtained in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment "where the state court record cannot be afforded deference because it does not resolve the issue of competency at the time petitioner entered a plea," and (2) petitioner received ineffective assistance of counselat the hearing on his motion to withdraw the plea, in violation of the Sixth Amendment, because counsel did not file a notice of appeal from the denial of his motion. Dkt. 4, at 2, 15, 17-18. In response to the petition, respondent filed a motion (Dkt. 6) to dismiss the petition as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)'s one-year statute of limitations and a brief (Dkt. 7) in support of the dismissal motion. Petitioner did not respond to the dismissal motion.
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief from a state-court judgment through a § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus generally has one year to file a federal habeas petition. The one-year limitation period commences on the latest of the following four dates:
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Regardless of when the one-year limitation period commences, that period is tolled for "[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending." Id. § 2244(d)(2). However, to obtain the benefit of statutory tolling, the petitioner must file the application for state postconviction relief or other collateral review (1) in accordance with applicable state laws and procedural rules, Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000), and (2) before the applicable AEDPA one-year limitation period expires, Clark v. Oklahoma, 468 F.3d 711, 714 (10th Cir. 2006).
Because the AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations is not jurisdictional, federal courts may toll the one-year limitation period for equitable reasons. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 645 (2010). To obtain equitable tolling, a habeas petitioner must show "'(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way' and prevented timely filing" of the federal habeas petition. Id. at 649 (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005)). This is a "strong burden" that requires the petitioner "to show specific facts to support his claim of extraordinary circumstances and due diligence." Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 928 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Brown v. Barrow, 512 F.3d 1304, 1307 (11th Cir. 2008)). While equitable tolling is available to permit review of untimely habeas claims, it is "a rare remedy to be applied in unusual circumstances." Al-Yousif v. Trani, 779 F.3d 1173, 1179 (10th Cir. 2015) (quoting Yang, 525 F.3d at 929).
In addition, courts may excuse noncompliance with the statute of limitations if the petitioner makes "a credible showing of actual innocence." McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 392 (2013). Like the remedy of equitable tolling, the Perkins' exception "applies to a severely confined category: cases in which new evidence shows 'it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted [the petitioner].'" Id. at 395 (alteration in original) (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 329 (1995)).
Respondent urges the Court to dismiss the petition as time-barred for three reasons. First, respondent contends the habeas petition is untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) because petitioner failed to file it within one year of the date his state-court judgment became final. Dkt. 7, at 4-5. Second, respondent contends petitioner has not shown that his one-year limitation period commenced at a later date under any other provisions in § 2244(d)(1). Dkt. 7, at 4-5 n.2. Third,respondent contends petitioner has not shown that the one-year limitation period should be either extended or excused for equitable reasons. Dkt. 7, at 5-10.
As previously stated, petitioner did not file a response to the dismissal motion. However, petitioner did make arguments in his petition to support his belief that he complied with the statute of limitations. Dkt. 4, at 9-12, 14-15. Fairly construing the petition,2 petitioner appears to argue that his petition is timely and/or he is entitled to equitable tolling of the one-year limitation period for three reasons. First, he contends his state-court judgment never became final because he has an unspecified "mental illness or defect" that caused the trial court to stay his criminal prosecution and the trial court failed to determine his competency before petitioner entered his guilty plea. Dkt. 4, at 9-10, 12. Second, petitioner "argues that because of a state created impediment and a constructive denial of the effective assistance of counsel he has been prevented from bringing a claim addressing the State action which has prevented him from bringing a claim." Id. at 12. Third, petitioner asserts, "[a]ny decision that would violate 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) is subject to equitable tolling because § 2254(d) reflects the view that habeas corpus is a 'guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems,'" and because the AEDPA's statute of limitations is not jurisdictional. Dkt. 4, at 14-15 (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 332 n.5 (1979) (Stevens, J., concurring)).
The petition is not timely under § 2244(d)(1)(A). Section 2244(d)(1)(A) requires a stateprisoner to file his or her federal habeas petition within one year of "the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Because petitioner's convictions resulted from guilty pleas, his only path to direct review under Oklahoma law was through a certiorari appeal. Clayton v. Jones, 700 F.3d 435, 441 (10th Cir. 2012). Petitioner therefore had 10 days from December 12, 2013, the date of his sentencing hearing, to file a motion to withdraw his plea and request a hearing on that motion if he...
To continue reading
Request your trial