United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
THOMUS RAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.
before the Court is a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner, Adam Eugene Lane
(“Lane”), an Arkansas Department of Correction
(“ADC”) inmate. Doc. 2. Before
addressing Lane's claims, the Court will review the
procedural history of the case.
October 2, 2013, Lane appeared in Sebastian County Circuit
Court and pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in
possession of a firearm. R. at 63-65.He was sentenced
to six years of imprisonment, followed by four years
suspended imposition of sentence (“SIS”). R.
at 73-77. He signed a document outlining the written
terms and conditions governing his behavior during the period
of his SIS. R. at 64.
December 8, 2014, Lane was paroled and released from the ADC.
R. at 127-28. In January 2015, Lane failed to report
to his parole officer, was not at his approved residence
during a home visit, and was allegedly staying at a motel in
Fort Smith without having received permission from his parole
officer. R. at 116-17, 126-27. On January 27, 2015,
Lane was located at the motel in possession of a handgun and
eight baggies containing over two grams of methamphetamine.
R. at 123-24, 140-45, 154-58.
February 3, 2015, the State filed a petition to revoke,
alleging that Lane had violated the conditions of his SIS by
committing the offenses of simultaneous possession of drugs
and firearms, possession of methamphetamine with purpose to
deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia, and being a felon
in possession of a firearm. R. at 79-80. The
petition further alleged that Lane had associated with a
known felon, and failed to pay restitution, fines, costs and
fees. R. at 80.
April 8, 2015, the Sebastian County Circuit Court conducted a
revocation hearing. R. at 107-63. At the end of the
hearing, the Court found that Lane had violated the
conditions of his SIS by: (1) simultaneously possessing drugs
and firearms; (2) possessing methamphetamine; and (3) failing
to pay his restitution, fines, and court costs and fees.
Doc. 11-3, at 41. The Court stated that judgment of
conviction would be entered and Lane would be sentenced to
fourteen years in the ADC. Id. On April 14, 2015,
the Court entered a Sentencing Order: (1) imposing judgment
on the felon-in-possession charge; and (2) sentencing Lane to
fourteen years in the ADC. R. at 93.
appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to comply with
two statutory provisions regarding SIS revocations: (1) not
providing a written statement of the evidence on which it had
relied and the reasons for revoking his SIS; and (2) not
holding the revocation hearing within sixty days of his
arrest. Doc. 11-3, at 45-50; see Ark. Code Ann.
November 18, 2015, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
Lane v. State, 2015 Ark.App. 672. Lane petitioned
for review in the Arkansas Supreme Court. His petition was
denied on January 28, 2016. Docs. 11-6 & 11-7.
Lane did not seek Rule 37 post-conviction relief.
November 21, 2016, Lane initiated this federal habeas action.
Doc. 2. In his Petition, he argues that he was
denied the effective assistance of counsel in his revocation
proceeding because his attorney did not seek a competency
evaluation. Liberally construing Lane's allegations, he
also argues that he was denied due process because the trial
court failed to determine his competency at the revocation
hearing even though Lane “expressed discontent”
and stated he was “not competent right now, too much
stuff running through my mind.” Id. at 5, 13; see
R. at 108-09.
argues that all of Lane's habeas claims are procedurally
defaulted. Doc. 11. Because the Court
agrees, it recommends that the § 2254 Petition be
denied, and that the case be dismissed, with prejudice.
habeas petitioner must “fairly present” his
claims in state court before seeking § 2254
relief in federal court. Murphy v. King, 652 F.3d
845, 858-49 (8th Cir. 2011); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)
(“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.”); Palmer v. Clarke, 408 F.3d
423, 430 (8th Cir. 2005) (a habeas petitioner has
“fairly presented” a claim when he has Aproperly
raised the same factual grounds and legal theories in the
state courts which he is attempting to raise in his federal
habeas petition.”). By exhausting all available state
court remedies, a habeas petitioner ...