United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Northern Division
KRISTINE G. BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Court has received Proposed Findings and Recommendations from
United States Magistrate Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 13).
Petitioner Claude Bryan Oakley filed objections (Dkt. No.
14). After careful review of the Proposed Findings and
Recommendations, a de novo review of the record, and
a review of Mr. Oakley's objections thereto, the Court
adopts the Proposed Findings and Recommendations and
dismisses Mr. Oakley's petition with prejudice (Dkt. No.
Proposed Findings and Recommendations regard Mr. Oakley's
petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 2). Mr. Oakley
is currently an Arkansas inmate in the Grimes Unit of the
Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC”) (Dkt.
No. 13, at 2). On July 27, 1996, Mr. Oakley was sentenced to
a term of 20 years of imprisonment in the ADC (Id.).
Mr. Oakley was paroled on September 4, 2001 (Id., at
3). On May 20, 2002, Arkansas authorities declared Mr. Oakley
an absconder from parole, and a warrant was issued two days
later (Id.). At the time, and unbeknownst to
Arkansas authorities, Mr. Oakley was living in Arizona where,
on May 14, 2002, he was arrested for stabbing his girlfriend
in the hand and setting her house on fire (Id., at
3-4). For these acts, on November 25, 2002, an Arizona court
sentenced Mr. Oakley to 13 and a half years in the Arizona
Department of Corrections (Id., at 4). Arizona
authorities released Mr. Oakley on July 12, 2013, and
Arkansas authorities granted him supervised parole on August
5, 2013 (Id.). Though Mr. Oakley violated his parole
by being arrested for driving while intoxicated on November
19, 2014, he remained on supervised parole until January 2,
2015, when he was arrested for second degree murder
(Id.). On January 9, 2015, the Arkansas Parole Board
held a hearing and revoked Mr. Oakley's parole for
violating the law and for alcohol and controlled substance
abuse (Id.). The pending murder charge was later
reduced to battery and then dropped by the prosecuting
Oakley filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing
that he should have been given credit by Arkansas authorities
for the approximately 11 years he served in the Arizona
Department of Corrections (Dkt. Nos. 2; 13, at 4). In his
petition, Mr. Oakley states that he is still incarcerated two
and a half years past his discharge date (Dkt. No. 2, at 5).
Mr. Oakley further states that Arkansas knew he was in prison
yet never contacted him for extradition (Id.). In
opposition, respondent argues that the ADC acted lawfully by
accounting for the 11 years that petitioner evaded his
Arkansas supervision when calculating his maximum release
date as March 10, 2027 (Dkt. No. 9, at 3). Respondent cites
Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-93-610(a) which states, in
part, that “[t]ime served . . . shall continue only
during the time in which a prisoner is actually confined in a
county jail or other local place of lawful confinement or
while under the custody and supervision of the department [of
Correction].” Respondent argues that the statute makes
no provision for time served in another state but refers to
“local” confinement and incarceration while the
prisoner is in the custody and under the supervision of the
ADC (Dkt. No. 9, at 3).
Proposed Findings and Recommendations deem Mr. Oakley's
petition wholly without merit (Id., at 6). Citing
Allen v. State, 742 S.W.2d 886 (Ark. 1988), Judge
Volpe makes clear that Mr. Oakley should only receive credit
for jail time served in Arkansas (Dkt. No. 13, at 5-6). Since
Mr. Oakley seeks credit for time served in a different state,
Mr. Oakley's petition is meritless (Id., at 6).
opposition, Mr. Oakley makes several arguments, though most
of these arguments are nonresponsive to the Proposed Findings
and Recommendation's straightforward conclusion (Dkt. No.
14, at 1-2). In part, Mr. Oakley relies on Guyton v.
Oddo, No. 4:15CV00756JM-JTK, 2016 WL 1737074 (E.D. Ark.
Apr. 6, 2016), asserting that this case should void any and
all arguments from any state agency and lead this Court to
find in his favor (Dkt. No. 14, at 1). Oddo,
however, differs significantly from Mr. Oakley's case. In
Oddo, petitioner Omar Guyton was convicted and
federally sentenced for armed bank robbery while on parole
for a separate crime. See Oddo, 2016 WL 1737074, at
*2. Prior to his conviction, Mr. Guyton had been deemed an
absconder, and Mr. Guyton requested via a writ of habeas
corpus that he no longer be considered an absconder since he
was in federal custody. See Id. United States
Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney found that respondent
provided evidence that Mr. Guyton was no longer considered an
absconder and that Mr. Guyton's sentence had been
properly calculated to reflect that fact. See Id.
Accordingly, the court denied Mr. Guyton's habeas
petition as moot. See Id. Here, instead of
requesting relief that he has already received, Mr. Oakley
seeks relief he has not received and for which he is
statutorily ineligible due to Arkansas Code Annotated §
16-93-610(a). Mr. Oakley's reliance on Oddo
proves misguided, and the rest of Mr. Oakley's objections
fail to rebut the Proposed Findings and Recommendations.
Certificate Of Appealability
Judge Volpe in the Proposed Findings and Recommendations
construes Mr. Oakley's petition as falling under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, both Mr. Oakley and respondent perceive
the petition as falling under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. No.
13, at 2, 6). In the event this petition is construed to fall
under § 2254, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and Rule
11 of the Rules Governing Section 2554 Cases in the United
States District Court, courts must determine whether to issue
a certificate of appealability in the final order (Dkt. No.
13, at 6). In § 2254 cases, a certificate of
appealability may issue only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2). This Court agrees with the
Proposed Findings and Recommendations and finds no issue on
which Mr. Oakley has made a substantial showing of a denial
of a constitutional right (Dkt. No. 13, at 6). Accordingly,
no certificate of appealability should issue.
therefore ordered that:
1. Consistent with the discussion above, the Court adopts the
Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety (Dkt.
2. The Court dismisses Mr. Oakley's petition with
prejudice and denies the requested ...