Johnson v. Kelley, 5:12-cv-00395

In 2008 a Pulaski County jury convicted Tony B. Johnson of attempted capital murder with a firearm enhancement; he received life plus 15 years. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed.
Johnson filed a Rule 37 postconviction petition in state court raising ineffective-assistance and related claims; the trial court denied relief after a hearing in March 2013.
Johnson attempted to appeal the Rule 37 denial but failed to timely lodge the appellate record and did not complete the required filings (motion for rule on clerk with an affidavit), so the Arkansas Supreme Court never ruled on the appeal.
While the state Rule 37 matter was pending, Johnson filed a federal habeas petition (Oct. 2012). The federal case was administratively closed and later reopened; Johnson supplemented his federal petition to proceed only on ineffective-assistance claims.
The magistrate judge found Johnson failed to exhaust state remedies (procedural default), rejected his explanations for the default, concluded the ineffective-assistance claims were not substantial, and recommended dismissal of the petition and denial of a certificate of appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion / procedural default	Johnson says he timely appealed and the clerk’s $213.50 requirement obstructed review	Respondent says Johnson failed to follow Arkansas filing rules and never gave the State Supreme Court a chance to rule	Petition is procedurally defaulted for failure to exhaust state remedies
Cause to excuse default	Johnson claims state-imposed impediments and has documentary proof (not produced)	Respondent/record show procedural mistakes by Johnson, not state interference	No cause shown; explanations insufficient to excuse default
Merits of ineffective-assistance claims (if reviewed)	Counsel failed to investigate, call witnesses, and raise involuntary-intoxication defense	Trial and Rule 37 records show claims lack substance	Even if Martinez applied, claims are not "substantial"; fail on the merits
Certificate of appealability (COA)	Implicitly seeks COA to appeal denial	Respondent argues claims are clearly defaulted/no merit	COA denied because claims are plainly procedurally defaulted

Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004) (requires fair presentation of claims to state courts before federal habeas)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (failure to exhaust state remedies can produce procedural default; standards for cause and prejudice)
Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971) (federal courts should give state courts opportunity to correct constitutional errors)
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual innocence gateway for review of defaulted claims requires compelling evidence)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standards for issuing a COA in habeas cases)
Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (narrow exception permitting ineffective-assistance claims to excuse procedural default in limited postconviction contexts)
Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013) (applies Martinez framework where state procedures make it unlikely ineffective-assistance claims are raised on direct appeal)
Turnage v. Fabian, 606 F.3d 933 (8th Cir. 2010) (discussing Schlup standard for miscarriage of justice)
Khaimov v. Crist, 297 F.3d 783 (8th Cir. 2002) (factors for COA when claims are procedurally barred)
Kennedy v. Delo, 959 F.2d 112 (8th Cir. 1992) (discusses procedural default doctrine)