Whitworth v. State of Missouri
4:15-cv-01411
| E.D. Mo. | Sep 11, 2018Background
- Petitioner Christopher Whitworth pleaded guilty to first-degree assault, was sentenced to seven years with execution suspended, and placed on five years probation; probation was revoked and the seven-year sentence was executed on March 25, 2013.
- The Missouri Department of Corrections had recommended denial of probation and not releasing Whitworth at his 120th day in the shock incarceration program.
- Whitworth filed a mandamus petition (June 30, 2014) and several state habeas petitions challenging denial of probation and contending he completed the 120-day program; all state remedies were denied, with the last denial by the Missouri Supreme Court on August 18, 2015.
- Whitworth filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on September 8, 2015, alleging (1) he successfully completed the 120‑day program under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 559.115(3) and (2) his continued custody violates due process because the sentencing court promised probation upon successful completion.
- Respondent argued the petition was untimely under AEDPA’s one‑year statute of limitations and, alternatively, that Whitworth’s claims are not cognizable on federal habeas because § 559.115 does not create a protected liberty interest.
- The magistrate judge denied and dismissed the § 2254 petition with prejudice, holding it untimely and, on the merits alternative, that no federal liberty interest arose under § 559.115 and thus the claims are not cognizable; no certificate of appealability issued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under AEDPA § 2244(d)(1)(A) | Whitworth challenged the March 25, 2013 order and filed federal petition Sept. 8, 2015 (argues entitlement to relief) | Respondent: one‑year AEDPA clock began March 25, 2013; Whitworth’s state petitions were filed after the year expired so no tolling — petition is untimely | Petition is untimely; AEDPA limitations expired before state filings, so federal petition dismissed |
| Cognizability / Liberty interest in § 559.115(3) (Due Process) | Whitworth: he completed 120‑day shock program and the sentencing court promised probation, creating a right to release | Respondent: § 559.115 vests unfettered discretion in DOC and the sentencing court; no protected liberty interest; claim is a state‑law matter not cognizable on federal habeas | No federal liberty interest under § 559.115; claims not cognizable on § 2254; alternative basis for denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (clarifies AEDPA § 2254(d) standards for "contrary to" and "unreasonable application")
- Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (statutory parole criteria can create protected liberty interest when standards constrain discretion)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (federal habeas does not remedy pure state‑law errors)
- Bear v. Fayram, 650 F.3d 1120 (8th Cir.) (explains AEDPA one‑year limitations for state prisoners)
- Gray v. Gammon, 283 F.3d 917 (8th Cir.) (state collateral filings made after AEDPA year do not toll the limitations period)