Scott v. Hubert
635 F.3d 659
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Scott, a Louisiana prisoner, challenged his aggravated-burglary conviction (guilty plea) and his sexual-battery conviction in a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254.
- He pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary in January 2003; two unauthorized-entry convictions were also entered but not at issue here.
- The district court dismissed the aggravated-burglary claim as time-barred under AEDPA, and deemed the sexual-battery claim procedurally defaulted.
- Timeline: 2004 appellate affirmance with resentencing; March 24, 2004 finality under AEDPA not binding state-law; May 2005 new appellate judgment; June 6, 2005 final direct-review deadline expired; February 2, 2007 tolling ends; December 31, 2007 federal petition filed.
- Scott timely sought state post-conviction relief in May 2005; the Louisiana First Circuit later ordered production of voir dire transcripts in 2005–2006, enabling a detailed Batson-based ineffective-assistance claim.
- The district court record lacked key state-court filings; on appeal, the Fifth Circuit held the AEDPA finality rule from Burton v. Stewart applies and Scott properly exhausted the Batson claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When is finality for AEDPA purposes achieved? | Finality occurred when both conviction and sentence were final (June 6, 2005). | Finality occurred earlier (March 24, 2004) when direct-review time lapsed for the conviction. | Finality for AEDPA purposes was June 6, 2005; petition timely. |
| Exhaustion of the Batson claim for the sexual-battery conviction? | Scott fairly presented Batson-based ineffective assistance theory with transcripts to state courts. | Record before district court lacked those filings, so exhaustion appeared lacking. | Exhaustion satisfied; complete filings in 2006–2006 with transcript supported the claim. |
| Were the limitations and exhaustion determinations properly decided by the district court? | District court erred by misapplying AEDPA finality and missing exhaustion evidence. | AEDPA finality and exhaustion were correctly determined at the district level. | District court erred; rulings reversed in part; petition timely and properly exhausted. |
| Is the petition's timing evaluated under Burton and Messervey principles? | The Burton/Messervey framework requires finality when conviction and sentence both final; timely otherwise. | Burton/Messervey not controlling for this positional nuance? (as argued in the district court). | Burton governs; conviction finality waited until sentence final; petition timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007) (final judgment means sentence; AEDPA clock starts when conviction and sentence final)
- Messervey, 269 F. App'x 379 (5th Cir. 2008) (timeliness when conviction affirmed but sentence remanded; takes cue from Burton)
- Tharpe v. Thaler, 628 F.3d 719 (5th Cir. 2010) (applies Burton rule to similar conviction/sentencing scenarios)
- Causey v. Cain, 450 F.3d 606 (5th Cir. 2006) (AEDPA finality is a federal-law inquiry)
- Roberts v. Cockrell, 319 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 2003) (state-law finality not controlling for AEDPA finality)
- Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (exhaustion framework—federal framework and evidentiary requirements)
- Kittelson v. Dretke, 426 F.3d 306 (5th Cir. 2005) (exhaustion standards under Fifth Circuit)
- Anderson v. Johnson, 338 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2003) (evidentiary support required for exhaustion)