United States District Court, D. Idaho
MARK D. BEAVERS, Petitioner,
SANDY JONES, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. NYE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
before the Court is Respondent Sandy Jones' Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Dkt. 7. The motion is now
fully briefed and ripe for adjudication. Dkts. 9, 10. The
Court takes judicial notice of the portions of the underlying
record in the state court proceedings submitted by the
parties. Having reviewed the record, including the state
court record, and having considered the arguments of the
parties, the Court enters the following Order.
OF MOTION TO DISMISS
January 30, 2009, in Kootenai County Case No. CR2006-18813,
Petitioner was sentenced to a six-year unified prison
sentence on Count 1, felony trafficking in marijuana, and a
concurrent five-year unified prison sentence on Count 2,
felony possession of marijuana with intent to deliver.
Petitioner satisfied the sentence for Count 1 on November 17,
2013, and for Count 2 on November 17, 2012. Dkt. 7-2, Ann
Greenwalt Aff., Appendix 1, p. 2.
5, 2017, over three years after having completed his last
sentence in Kootenai County Case No. CR2006-18813, Petitioner
filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the instant
action to challenge his convictions arising from that case.
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction, arguing that Petitioner was no longer
“in custody” on these convictions at the time he
filed his federal Petition. Dkt. 7.
Respondent filed the Motion to Dismiss, Petitioner asserted
that, because the convictions in Kootenai County Case No.
CR2006-18813 were used to enhance the sentence in
another criminal drug trafficking case for which he
is currently serving a twelve-year sentence, Kootenai County
Case No. CR2007-27416, jurisdiction lies. Dkt. 9. The longer,
enhanced sentence in the new case were ordered to run
concurrently, not consecutively, to the shorter sentences in
the prior case.
of the sentences described above are contained within a
single judgment of conviction. Dkt. 7-3, pp. 3-4. Petitioner
is now out of prison on parole for the twelve-year sentence.
Standard of Law
petitioner's compliance with threshold procedural
requirements is at issue, a respondent may file a motion for
summary dismissal, rather than an answer. White v.
Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1989). Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing § 2254 Cases authorizes the Court to
summarily dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus when
“it plainly appears from the face of the petition and
any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief in the district court.”
threshold showing a § 2254 petitioner must make is that
he is “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State
court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). If a petitioner
cannot make that showing, no subject matter jurisdiction lies
for the federal court to hear his petition.
United States Supreme Court has addressed this issue several
times. In Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (1989), the
Court held that “the respondent was not ‘in
custody' on his 1958 conviction merely because that
conviction had been used to enhance a subsequent
sentence.” Id. at 492. But if the petition
challenged the later enhanced sentence or its underlying
conviction, jurisdiction was proper for the latter sentence
or conviction. Id. at 493-94.
Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss, 532
U.S. 394 (2001), the United States Supreme Court reiterated
that a challenge to a prior expired conviction is not
cognizable once the petitioner is no longer in custody for
that conviction, notwithstanding the fact that the prior
conviction was used to enhance a sentence on a conviction for
which the petitioner was in custody at the time the
petition was filed. See Id. at 402. However, the
Court recognized an exception to that rule-where a federal
habeas petitioner can demonstrate that his current state
sentence was enhanced on the basis of a prior state
conviction that was obtained without counsel in violation of
the Sixth Amendment. Id., pp. 402-08.