Steven Lynn Freeman v. Larry Norris

Eighth Circuit

Steven Lynn Freeman v. Larry Norris

58 F. App'x 667

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 5, 2003

Docket02-3172

StatusUnpublished

This text of 58 F. App'x 667 (Steven Lynn Freeman v. Larry Norris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steven Lynn Freeman v. Larry Norris, 58 F. App'x 667 (8th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Steven Lynn Freeman was convicted of rape and sentenced to 40 years imprisonment. On direct appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, see Freeman v. State, 331 Ark. 130, 959 S.W.2d 400 (1998), and Freeman’s petition for postconviction relief was denied, as was his August 2000 petition to reinvest the trial court with jurisdiction to consider a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, see Freeman v. State, No. CR 97-640, 2000 WL 1476656, at *1 (Ark. Oct. 5, 2000) (unpublished per curiam).

In October 2001, almost a year after the denial of his August 2000 petition, Freeman filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, raising, as he did in the August 2000 petition, a claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). Freeman argued equitable considerations should toll the one-year statute of limitations application to section 2254 petitions, because the evi *668 dence underlying his Brady claim established he was actually innocent. Even assuming the statute of limitations did not begin to run until Freeman obtained the Brady evidence in March 2000, and the limitations period was tolled during the pendency of the state court proceeding from August through October 2000, Freeman still waited nearly seventeen months to pursue his claims in federal court. Given Freeman’s failure to show wrongdoing by the State prevented him from bringing a timely petition, his reliance on actual innocence to invoke equitable tolling is misplaced. See Flanders v. Graves, 299 F.3d 974, 978 (8th Cir.2002), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1361, 155 L.Ed.2d 263 (2003).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court * dismissing Freeman’s petition as time-barred.

*

The Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Steven Lynn Freeman was convicted of rape and sentenced to 40 years imprisonment. On direct appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, see Freeman v. State, 331 Ark. 130, 959 S.W.2d 400 (1998), and Freeman’s petition for postconviction relief was denied, as was his August 2000 petition to reinvest the trial court with jurisdiction to consider a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, see Freeman v. State, No. CR 97-640, 2000 WL 1476656, at *1 (Ark. Oct. 5, 2000) (unpublished per curiam).

In October 2001, almost a year after the denial of his August 2000 petition, Freeman filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, raising, as he did in the August 2000 petition, a claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). Freeman argued equitable considerations should toll the one-year statute of limitations application to section 2254 petitions, because the evi *668 dence underlying his Brady claim established he was actually innocent. Even assuming the statute of limitations did not begin to run until Freeman obtained the Brady evidence in March 2000, and the limitations period was tolled during the pendency of the state court proceeding from August through October 2000, Freeman still waited nearly seventeen months to pursue his claims in federal court. Given Freeman’s failure to show wrongdoing by the State prevented him from bringing a timely petition, his reliance on actual innocence to invoke equitable tolling is misplaced. See Flanders v. Graves, 299 F.3d 974, 978 (8th Cir.2002), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1361, 155 L.Ed.2d 263 (2003).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court * dismissing Freeman’s petition as time-barred.

*

The Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 F. App'x 667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steven-lynn-freeman-v-larry-norris-ca8-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack