Opinion
Case No. CV 04-144-S-BLW.
June 16, 2004
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
William Folds filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on March 25, 2004. The case was assigned to a magistrate judge, who reviewed the Petition and ordered the Clerk of Court to return it to Petitioner for failure to comply with the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner has since filed a renewed Petition, and the case has been reassigned to this Court because Petitioner has not consented to proceeding before a magistrate judge.
The Court has conducted an initial review of the Petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The Court has concluded, for the following reasons, that the Petition shall be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies.
I. BACKGROUND
The State charged Petitioner with one count of robbery, based upon an incident in which Petitioner and his wife took money from a convenience store in Teton County, Idaho. The State also alleged that Petitioner was a persistent violator. In exchange for Petitioner's guilty plea to the robbery charge, the State agreed to dismiss the persistent violator count, and Petitioner was subsequently sentenced to fifteen years in prison, with five years fixed. Petitioner appealed his sentence, which was affirmed by the Idaho Court of Appeals.
Petitioner thereafter filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court on March 25, 2003. The case was assigned to a magistrate judge, who reviewed the Petition and determined that it failed to comply with the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Specifically, the magistrate judge could not discern any federal claim for relief. (Docket No. 6, p. 2.) The Petition was returned to Petitioner with instructions to file a new Petition within 30 days that complied with the Rules. Petitioner has since filed such a Petition, and the case was reassigned to this Court for review.
II. REVIEW OF PETITION
A. Standard of Law
In order to have a habeas corpus petition heard in federal court, a petitioner must allege that he is in custody under a state court judgment and that this custody violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The Court is required to review the petition upon receipt to determine whether it is subject to summary dismissal. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Summary dismissal is appropriate where "it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." Id.
Summary dismissal may also be warranted if a petitioner has not "exhausted" his state court remedies relative to a particular federal claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). A petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies if he still has the right to raise his claims under any available state court procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c). In addition, to exhaust his claims properly, a petitioner must fairly present his claims to the highest state court in a procedurally proper manner under state law before raising them in a federal habeas petition. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999).
B. Discussion
In his Petition, Petitioner makes a vague argument that the State violated the plea agreement in some manner, but the precise contours of the claim remains unclear. It is a violation of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment for a prosecutor to breach a plea agreement. Santabello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971). Thus, despite the somewhat obscure factual basis for the claim, Petitioner has stated a cognizable federal claim.
Petitioner, however, has not exhausted his state court remedies relative to this claim. Petitioner did not raise this issue on direct appeal, instead claiming that his sentence was excessive, and Petitioner still has an apparent state court remedy available to him under Idaho's Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act. Idaho Code §§ 19-4201-19-4211; see also Berg v. State, 960 P.2d 738 (Idaho 1998) (addressing a claim in a post-conviction proceeding that the State breached a plea agreement). A state prisoner has one year after his appeal became final in which to file a petition for post-conviction relief. Idaho Code § 19-4202(a). Petitioner's direct appeal became final on August 7, 2003, and his one-year limitation period has not yet expired. Accordingly, Petitioner must exhaust this available state court remedy.
The Court is aware that Idaho appellate courts have reviewed claims of breached plea agreements on direct appeal, see, e.g., State v. Rutherford, 693 P.2d 1112 (Idaho 1998), and that an issue that could have been raised on direct appeal, but was not, will generally be procedurally barred in a post-conviction petition. Idaho Code § 19-4901(b). But Idaho courts have also permitted such claims to be litigated during a post-conviction proceeding. See State v. Kellis, 932 P.2d 358 (Idaho 1997); Berg v. State, 960 P.2d 738 (Idaho 1998). It is unclear whether the state courts would impose a procedural bar in Petitioner's case, and it is in the interest of federalism, comity, and judicial efficiency to require Petitioner to attempt exhaustion before this Court addresses the merits of his claim.
Petitioner may file a new federal petition, if necessary, after he has exhausted his claim in state court. Petitioner must be mindful of the one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas petitions, contained within 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), and its application to any future federal petition. The one-year limitations period began to run from the date Petitioner's judgment became final in state court at the conclusion of direct review, which includes the 90-day period for filing a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 1999). The one-year period has not been not tolled (stopped) while this federal Petition has been pending in this Court, although the time will be tolled while Petitioner pursues a properly-filed post-conviction action in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
Petitioner is further advised that the one-year period does not start over once his state post-conviction proceeding has terminated. For example, if Petitioner files a state post-conviction petition nine months into the federal limitations period, the federal limitations period will be tolled for the entire time that the state action is pending, but Petitioner will have only three months to file a new federal Petition after the Idaho Supreme Court issues its final order.
III. ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 3) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Application for In Forma Pauperis Status (Docket No. 1) is DENIED as MOOT.