Bennett v. Hobbs
5:12-cv-00368
E.D. Ark.Dec 4, 2012Background
- Bennett pled guilty in 2000 to two counts of first-degree murder and one count of arson; sentenced to 25 years for each murder count (consecutive) and 20 years for arson (to run concurrent)
- Bennett did not file state postconviction relief until 2012, and no ruling had occurred in state court on that petition
- Bennett filed a federal habeas petition on September 20, 2012 seeking relief on multiple claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and DNA testing issues
- Respondent argued the AEDPA one-year statute of limitations barred review and that Bennett failed to exhaust or toll the period
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal as time-barred and denied a certificate of appealability
- Court issued order on December 4, 2012 denying habeas relief and certificate of appealability
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition is timely under AEDPA | Bennett argues impediment/ tolling could apply | Hobbs contends limitations began May 10, 2002 and expired long before filing | Time-barred under AEDPA |
| Whether state-created impediments to post-trial DNA testing toll the period | Arkansas law impeded access to post-trial DNA testing | Impeding state law does not toll AEDPA clock | No tolling from impediment |
| Whether equitable tolling applies given extraordinary circumstances | Equitable tolling should apply due to impediments | No extraordinary circumstances shown | Equitable tolling not warranted |
| Whether actual innocence can excuse the default or tolling under AEDPA | Actual innocence should allow merits review | Actual innocence not a basis to toll the statute here | Actual innocence not a gateway to tolling or merits review under these facts |
| Whether a certificate of appealability should issue | Petitioner seeks COA for appeal | No substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right | COA denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Flanders v. Graves, 299 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2002) (equitable tolling limited; actual innocence not a tolling ground here)
- Gassler v. Bruton, 255 F.3d 492 (8th Cir. 2001) (equitable tolling requires external impediments or defendant's conduct)
- Jihad v. Hvass, 267 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 2001) (equitable tolling applicable only under narrow, external circumstances)
- Kreutzer v. Bowersox, 231 F.3d 460 (8th Cir. 2000) (tolling requires extraordinary circumstances beyond petitioner's control)
- Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986) (actual innocence as gateway to considering procedurally defaulted claims)
- United States v. Lurie, 207 F.3d 1075 (8th Cir. 2000) (discussed in context of actual innocence and tolling)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (no constitutional right to counsel in state postconviction proceedings; Martinez exception not applicable here)
- Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977) (procedural default and exhaustion principles)
- Kemp v. Hobbs, 2012 WL 2505229 (N.D. Ark. 2012) (Martinez v. Ryan discussed but not controlling groundwork)