Franklin Baines v.
17-3526
| 3rd Cir. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Franklin Baines, serving life without parole for a murder committed at 16, has a Miller/Montgomery claim entitling him to resentencing.
- Baines filed a timely PCRA petition in Pennsylvania state court and a federal habeas petition; the federal magistrate stayed the habeas under Rhines to permit state-court exhaustion.
- The Philadelphia District Attorney offered a new sentence of 40 years to life, which would make Baines immediately parole-eligible upon resentencing; Baines has declined the offer.
- Baines, proceeding pro se in federal court after his appointed attorney withdrew, moved to lift the Rhines stay and to be excused from exhaustion; the magistrate denied those motions.
- Baines petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus seeking relief from the exhaustion requirement and other relief; the Third Circuit denied the mandamus petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus should issue to excuse exhaustion and compel immediate relief | Baines contends state process is subterfuge/delaying and seeks immediate resentencing or to excuse exhaustion | Commonwealth and magistrate contend state proceedings are progressing and an offered sentence makes relief imminent | Denied — no clear and indisputable right to mandamus; state proceedings are moving and stay was appropriate |
| Whether state-court delay renders exhaustion ineffective so federal review is permitted | Baines argues delay/obstruction makes state remedy unavailable | Respondents point to active state proceedings and a concrete offer; no inordinate unexplained delay | Denied — no showing of inordinate delay that would excuse exhaustion; Rhines stay appropriate |
| Whether Miller entitles Baines to challenge his guilty plea as part of resentencing relief | Baines seeks to challenge plea voluntariness in state court | Commonwealth asserts Miller entitles only to resentencing, not plea withdrawal | Court: Miller does not permit collateral attack on the plea; relief is resentencing only |
| Proper appellate route from Magistrate Judge's order staying habeas | Baines appealed the magistrate order to the circuit | Respondents note appeal from magistrate order goes to district judge unless parties consent | Circuit: Appeal from magistrate goes to District Judge under 28 U.S.C. §636; district court may reverse if order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule made retroactive on collateral review)
- Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (district courts may stay habeas to allow exhaustion when claims are not plainly meritless and good cause exists)
- Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394 (1976) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy)
- Wojtczak v. Fulcomer, 800 F.2d 353 (3d Cir. 1986) (state delay can render state remedies effectively unavailable and excuse exhaustion)
- Haines v. Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81 (3d Cir. 1992) (mandamus requires clear and indisputable right and lack of other adequate remedies)
- Christin v. Brennan, 281 F.3d 404 (3d Cir. 2002) (district courts should stay habeas when previously stalled state proceedings resume)
- Lee v. Stickman, 357 F.3d 338 (3d Cir. 2004) (exhaustion may be excused where post-conviction petitions were pending unusually long without petitioner’s fault)