SAUVE v. JOYCE
2:11-cv-00456
D. Me.Mar 7, 2012Background
- Sauve filed an amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2009 Maine terrorizing conviction enhanced by prior offennses.
- Sauve argued the trial court relied on unconstitutionally sound priors, and challenged the Maine terrorizing statute as unconstitutional.
- Sauve claimed his nolo contendere plea was invalid due to coercion and medication unavailability before trial.
- Sauve contended Maine post-conviction remedies were insufficient and he could not pursue them effectively.
- Petition filed November 29, 2011 while Sauve remained in custody on probation-revocation proceedings related to the same conviction.
- Judge summarized state-court procedural history, including sentencing, probation statuses, and several state petitions for habeas relief ultimately dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition is timely under AEDPA § 2244(d). | Sauve argues tolling due to state-law delays. | State argues final judgment May 15, 2009 fixes time bar; no tolling applies. | Petition denied; AEDPA statute of limitations not tolled. |
| Whether Sauve exhausted state remedies or defaulted claims. | Sauve attempted state habeas relief, seeking to challenge priors used for enhancement. | Sauve defaulted claims by not pursuing earlier avenues and could have challenged on direct appeal. | Adequate and independent state grounds exist; defaults barred federal review. |
| Whether common law or statutory post-conviction review in Maine forecloses federal relief. | Sauve relied on state habeas equivalents to challenge enhancements. | The Maine system provides exhaustive post-conviction procedures; common law habeas replaced. | State remedies exhausted or foreclosed; no federal relief available. |
| Whether the underlying grounds for relief have merit, given AEDPA and exhaustion. | Claims involve invalid priors, unconstitutional statute, coercive plea, and remedy failures. | Claims lack merit or are procedurally defaulted; relief inappropriate. | Petition denied on procedural grounds; no substantial constitutional rights demonstrated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Martin, 131 S. Ct. 1120 (Supreme Court 2011) (adequate and independent state ground doctrine governs exhaustion)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (Supreme Court 1991) (defaulted state-court claims cannot be raised in federal habeas)
- Akins v. United States, 204 F.3d 1086 (4th Cir. 2000) (equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances)