Myers v. Payne
| Decision Date | 09 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 4:22-cv-01205-KGB-PSH |
| Parties | RANDY MYERS PETITIONER v. DEXTER PAYNE RESPONDENT |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
The following Recommendation has been sent to United States District Judge Kristine G. Baker. 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 this Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.
In this case, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, petitioner Randy Myers (“Myers”) challenges his 2018 negotiated plea of no contest in Faulkner County Circuit Court.[1] It is recommended that this case be dismissed. Most of the claims he raises involve alleged violations of state law and are therefore not cognizable in this proceeding. His remaining claims are without merit.
The record reflects that Myers was charged in an amended criminal information with one count of conspiring to commit rape in violation of Ark. Code Ann 5-14-103(a)(3)(A) (“rape count”). It was alleged that he conspired to engage in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with another person who was less than fourteen years of age. Myers was also charged in the information with thirty counts of distributing, possessing or viewing a matter depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a minor child, first offense, in violation of Ark Code Ann. 5-27-602 (“child pornography counts”).
The State of Arkansas (“State”) and Myers eventually entered into a negotiated plea agreement. See Docket Entry 6-3 (Exhibit B) at CM/ECF 116-120. The State agreed to dismiss twenty-three of the child pornography counts in exchange for Myers agreeing to plead no contest to the rape count and remaining seven child pornography counts. During a change of plea/sentencing hearing, he was questioned about his decision to plead no contest. See Id. at CM/ECF 220-231. The transcript of the hearing reflects, in part, the following:
See Docket Entry 6-3 (Exhibit B) at CM/ECF 224-226. The Faulkner County Circuit Court ("trial court") sentenced Myers to a term of imprisonment agreed upon in the negotiated plea agreement, as well as a suspended imposition of sentence also agreed to in the agreement.
It was not long before Myers began challenging aspects of his plea of no contest. He filed a direct appeal, even though he had been cautioned during the change of plea/sentencing hearing that he was waiving his right to appeal by pleading no contest. He later moved to dismiss the appeal, and the Arkansas Court of Appeals granted his motion. See Docket Entry 64 (Exhibit C).
Myers then filed a trial court petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37 (“Rule 37”). The trial court denied the petition, and the state Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the petition. See Myers v. State, 2020 Ark.App. 16, 593 S.W.3d 29 (2020).
Myers filed a trial court petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The trial court denied the petition, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the petition. See Myers v. State, 2021 Ark. 93, 621 S.W.3d 148 (2021).
Myers filed a petition for state habeas corpus relief in Lincoln County Circuit Court pursuant to the Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-101. The trial court denied the petition, and the state Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the petition. See Myers v. Payne, 2022 Ark. 156, --- S.W.3d ---, 2022 WL 4372579 (2022).
Myers began this case by filing the petition at bar. In the petition, he challenged his plea of no contest on the following grounds: there was no factual basis for his plea; the trial court violated a state administrative order; an undercover police officer's false statements resulted in the issuance of an arrest warrant not supported by probable cause; Myers was denied a Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), hearing (“Franks hearing”); the sentencing order was invalid; and he is actually innocent.
Respondent Dexter Payne (“Payne”) filed a response to the petition. In the response, Payne maintained that the petition should be dismissed because most of Myers' claims involve alleged violations of state law and are therefore not cognizable in this proceeding. With respect to Myers' remaining claims, Payne maintained that they are without merit.[2]
Myers filed a reply in which he challenged Payne's assertions. Myers continued to maintain, inter alia, that there was no factual basis for his plea of no contest and the violations of state law encroached upon rights afforded him by the United States Constitution. He concluded his reply by advancing the novel argument that the failure to ensure he entered a valid plea subjected him to involuntary servitude/slavery.
Myers' first claim is that the trial court failed to determine whether there was a factual basis for his plea of no contest. In support of the claim, he alleges, in part, the following:
ACA 5-14-103(a)(3) is a dual prong statute requiring sexual intercourse or sexual deviate activity AND a victim under 14. CA 5-27-602 requires a child (under 17 per 5-27-601(1) who is engaged in sexually explicit conduct (as defined in 5-27601(15)). The plea court entered a plea without the age of alleged victims for all counts and without establishing that the images involved meet the criteria established in 5-27-601(15) ...
See Docket Entry 2 at CM/ECF 5.
Payne construes Myers' first claim as alleging violations of Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 24.4 and 24.6 (“Rules 24.4 and 24.6”).[3] Specifically, Payne construes Myers' first claim as alleging that the trial court did not comply with Rules 24.4 and 24.6 when the court failed to ensure there was a factual basis for his plea of no contest. Payne maintains that because the claim arises from state rules of criminal procedure, it is not cognizable in this proceeding.
It is axiomatic that “federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.” See Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990). Instead, a federal court is limited to determining whether a conviction, or in this instance a plea of no contest, violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991).
Assuming, without deciding, that Payne's construction of Myers' first claim is correct, the claim warrants no relief. Myers alleges the violations of state rules of criminal procedure, and federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for the alleged violations of such rules.
It is possible, though, to construe Myers' first claim as a challenge to whether his plea of no contest was voluntary and intelligent, which is a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.[4] Specifically, it is possible to construe the claim as challenging his understanding that the rape and child pornography counts involved minor children and the images depicted those children engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Assuming the claim can be construed in such a manner, it still warrants no relief.
A plea of no contest, to be valid, must be voluntary and intelligent. See Country v. Foster, 806 F.2d 182 (8th Cir. 1986). “To determine the voluntariness of a plea, the relevant circumstances must be considered.” See Id. at 183. “For a plea to be made intelligently, the defendant must have received effective assistance of counsel.” See Id.
Here, Myers gave a statement to law enforcement officers shortly after his arrest. See Docket Entry 6-3 (Exhibit B) at CM/ECF 16. In the statement, he admitted that he had “traveled to Arkansas with the intention of engaging in sex with children between the ages of eleven and fourteen.” See Myers v. State, 621 S.W.3d at 150. He also admitted that his computer contained hundreds of images of child pornography, see Id., and the images depicted children between the ages of approximately one and sixteen engaging in sexually explicit conduct. See Docket Entry 6-3 (Exhibit B) at 16.
During the change of plea/sentencing hearing, Myers stated under oath that he understood the Constitutional rights he was waiving by pleading no contest. He stated that he understood the charges he was facing and the punishment he would receive as a result of his plea. He additionally stated that he had discussed his case with his attorney and had been advised about...
To continue reading
Request your trial