Michael A. Kelley v. Greg Zoeller
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15222
7th Cir.2015Background
- In 1975 Kelley pled guilty in Indiana to a robbery; he alleges the State agreed to "set aside"/expunge the state conviction if he served a federal FYCA sentence, which his federal conviction later was set aside under FYCA. There is no written state plea agreement in the record.
- Kelley never served the Indiana sentence; he was later convicted of murder (1982) and another robbery (1983). Presentence materials in 1982–83 listed the 1975 robbery, indicating it remained on his record.
- In 2011 Kelley was indicted in federal court for being a felon in possession and drug distribution; the government sought ACCA enhancement based on three prior violent felonies: the 1975 robbery, the 1982 murder, and the 1983 robbery.
- Kelley, asserting the State breached an agreement to expunge the 1975 conviction, pursued Indiana post-conviction relief decades later; the state courts denied relief as untimely and barred by laches, holding Kelley was on notice by 1982–83.
- Kelley filed a §2254 habeas in federal court while awaiting federal sentencing; the Northern District of Indiana dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because he was not "in custody" under the 1975 state conviction when he filed. The Missouri federal court then applied the 1975 conviction to enhance his sentence under the ACCA.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal: Kelley was not "in custody" for §2254 at filing; the state-court laches ruling is an adequate and independent state ground; and Daniels/Custis limits preclude a collateral §2255 attack on a prior state conviction except in narrow circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner was “in custody” under the 1975 state conviction for §2254 purposes | Kelley: his federal custody (after sentencing enhancement) depends on the 1975 conviction, so he is effectively "in custody" on that conviction | State: at the time of the §2254 filing Kelley was not in custody under the 1975 conviction; Maleng bars §2254 when sentence has fully expired | Held: Not in custody for §2254 at filing; district court lacked jurisdiction (Maleng governs) |
| Whether the State breached a promise to expunge the 1975 conviction | Kelley: State agreed to set aside/expunge the 1975 conviction as part of a plea bargain, so using it at federal sentencing violates his rights | State: no written agreement; no Indiana law provided for expungement then; evidence shows conviction remained and Kelley had notice | Held: Indiana courts found no basis to set aside; in any event Kelley’s delay barred relief by laches |
| Whether this is a “rare case” (Daniels) allowing collateral federal attack on prior state conviction | Kelley: he had no realistic earlier opportunity to challenge the state conviction because he relied on the alleged promise and discovered the breach only when federal enhancement was sought | State: Kelley had notice by 1982–83 and unreasonably delayed; state procedural bar applies | Held: Not a rare Daniels case; state laches ruling is an adequate and independent ground precluding federal review |
| Whether relief could be heard under §2255 as a challenge to the federal sentence enhanced by the state conviction | Kelley: federal forum should consider that the predicate state conviction is invalid | State: Daniels/Custis restrict §2255 challenges to prior convictions; only Gideon/ineffective-counsel claims preserved; procedural posture wrong court/respondent | Held: Even if recharacterized as §2255, Daniels/Custis limits and Kelley’s failure to obtain timely state relief mean his claim fails; remand unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (statutory "in custody" requires custody under the conviction attacked)
- Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374 (limits collateral attack via §2255 on prior state convictions used for ACCA enhancement)
- Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (prior convictions presumptively valid at federal sentencing unless previously set aside)
- Tuten v. United States, 460 U.S. 660 (FYCA expungement framework)
- Stanbridge v. Scott, 791 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. discussion of "in custody" and habeas jurisdiction)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (doctrine of independent and adequate state grounds bars federal habeas review)
- Gray v. Hardy, 598 F.3d 324 (state procedural bars preclude federal collateral review)
- Rhodes v. Dittmann, 783 F.3d 669 (untimeliness as an independent and adequate state ground)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (AEDPA deference principles applied in §2254 review)