Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Anna Childers ADC # 712009 v. Kelley

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division

March 2, 2018

ANNA CHILDERS ADC #712009 PETITIONER
v.
WENDY KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT

          RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

         The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to United States District Judge J. Leon Holmes. 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.

         I. Introduction

         Pending before the Court is a § 2254 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Anna Childers (“Childers”), an Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC”) inmate. Doc. 2. Before addressing Childers's habeas claims, the Court will review the procedural history of the case in state court.

         On April 17, 2015, a Grant County Circuit Court jury convicted Childers of delivery of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and unauthorized use of another person's property to facilitate a crime. She was sentenced, as a habitual offender, to twenty years of imprisonment on each of the three convictions, to be served consecutively. Doc. 2 at 1; see State v. Childers, Grant Co. Cir. Ct. No. CR 14-109 (accessible at https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov).

         On May 4, 2015, Childers filed a notice of appeal to the Arkansas Court of Appeals. On June 8, 2015 -- while her direct appeal was pending -- Childers filed two pro se petitions in the trial court: (1) a state petition for writ of habeas corpus; and (2) a petition to correct illegal sentence under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111. On June 17, 2015, the trial court entered separate orders denying the petitions on the ground that they failed to raise cognizable claims.[1] State v. Childers, supra.

         On August 31, 2016, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed Childers's convictions. Childers v. State, 2016 Ark.App. 371, 498 S.W.3d 742. She then had eighteen days, until September 18, 2016, to file a petition for review with the Arkansas Supreme Court. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 2-4(a). Because September 18 fell on a Sunday, the deadline became Monday, September 19, 2016. See Ark. R. App. P.- Crim. 17. Childers did not file a petition for review with the Arkansas Supreme Court.

         After her convictions were affirmed, Childers did not seek any post-conviction relief in state court pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.

         On October 20, 2017, Childers filed this § 2254 habeas action.[2] She argues: (1) her trial and direct-appeal counsel were constitutionally ineffective; (2) her convictions were improperly based on circumstantial evidence; (3) a confidential informant's testimony for the state was “inadmissible”; and (4) the witness's testimony was not credible. Doc. 2 at 4-5.

         Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Brief in Support, arguing that Childers's claims should be dismissed because the § 2254 Petition is time-barred. Docs. 6 & 7. Although notified of her opportunity to file a Response to the Motion to Dismiss, Childers elected not to do so. See Doc. 8.

         For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends that Childers's claims be dismissed as untimely.

         II. Discussion

         A. Calculation of Limitations Period

         A state prisoner seeking to challenge his or her state court conviction in federal court generally must file a petition for habeas relief within one year of the date the “judgment [of conviction] 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). When a criminal defendant fails to seek discretionary review of his criminal conviction in the state's highest court, the judgment becomes “final” when the time for seeking such review expires. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 150 (2012); see Johnson v. Hobbs, 678 F.3d 607, 610 (8th Cir. 2012) (in cases decided by the Arkansas Court of Appeals, a conviction becomes “final” when the prisoner can no longer file a petition for review with the Arkansas Supreme Court).

         On August 31, 2016, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed Childers's convictions. Because she elected not to seek discretionary review from the Arkansas Supreme Court, her convictions became “final” on September 20, 2016, when she could no longer seek review from that Court.[3 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.