Guthrie v. Steele
4:17-cv-02209
E.D. Mo.Sep 29, 2017Background
- Guthrie pled guilty to DWI–Chronic Offender on April 14, 2010; court imposed 15 years but suspended execution of sentence and he did not appeal.
- Probation was revoked on May 1, 2013, and Guthrie was remanded; he did not appeal the revocation.
- Guthrie filed multiple state post-conviction and extraordinary writ actions starting October 1, 2014; the state courts denied relief through April 4, 2017.
- Guthrie placed a federal § 2254 habeas petition in the prison mail system on July 10, 2017, challenging only the revocation of probation.
- The district court concluded Guthrie’s judgment of revocation became final May 11, 2013, so the one-year AEDPA limitation expired May 11, 2014, before his state filings.
- The court found Guthrie’s June 5, 2013 post-conviction motion was dismissed as untimely under Missouri law and thus not "properly filed" for § 2244(d)(2) tolling; extraordinary writs likewise do not toll.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Guthrie's § 2254 petition is timely under § 2244(d) | Guthrie argues his state post-conviction filing (June 5, 2013) and other state filings toll AEDPA, making the federal petition timely | Respondent argues the conviction became final May 11, 2013, AEDPA expired May 11, 2014, and Guthrie’s state filings were not properly filed to toll the statute | Petition is time-barred; dismissed under § 2244(d) |
| Whether the June 5, 2013 post-conviction motion tolled AEDPA | Guthrie contends that the June 2013 motion tolled the limitations period | Respondent notes the state court dismissed that motion as untimely under Mo. S. Ct. R. 24.035, so it was not "properly filed" | The court held the June 2013 motion was not properly filed and did not toll AEDPA |
| Whether extraordinary writs (writs of prohibition) toll AEDPA | Guthrie relies on petitions for writs of prohibition filed in 2013–2014 to support tolling | Respondent asserts writs of prohibition are not post-conviction relief and Missouri bars successive motions, so these do not toll § 2244(d) | Writs of prohibition do not toll AEDPA; they are not properly filed post-conviction motions |
| Whether a certificate of appealability (COA) should issue | Guthrie implicitly seeks appealability | Respondent implicitly opposes | Court denied a COA |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. Missouri, 215 S.W.3d 292 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007) (suspended execution of sentence treated as executed for finality)
- Walker v. Norris, 436 F.3d 1026 (8th Cir. 2006) (state-court rejection of untimely post-conviction application means it was not properly filed for AEDPA tolling)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (untimely state post-conviction petitions do not qualify for statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2))
- Turpin v. Missouri, 223 S.W.3d 175 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007) (successive post-conviction motions barred and that bar is jurisdictional)