Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Maddox v. Thomas

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

May 11, 2018

MICKEY A. MADDOX, #A0723747, Petitioner,
TODD THOMAS, Respondent.


          Derrick K. Watson United States District Judge

         Before the court are Petitioner Mickey A. Maddox's (1) Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”); and (2) “Request for Preliminary Injunction for Immediate Release From Detention” (“Motion”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. The Petition challenges the judgments of conviction in two separate cases, State v. Maddox, Cr. No. 07-1-0139 (Haw. 2d Cir. 2007) (“2007 Case”); and State v. Maddox, Cr. No. 09-1-0284 (Haw. 2d Cir. 2009) (“2009 Case”).

         The court has reviewed the Petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“Habeas Rules”). Because the Petition challenges the judgments in two separate state court proceedings, Maddox “must file a separate petition covering the judgment or judgments of each court.” Habeas Rule 2(e). Moreover, as discussed below, some of the claims set forth in the Petition appear to be unexhausted or represent claims that are not cognizable in a Section 2254 Petition. Accordingly, the Petition is DISMISSED with leave granted to amend to file two separate petitions in accordance with the guidance below. Maddox's Request for Immediate Release from Detention is DENIED.

         I. BACKGROUND[1]

         A. State Court Proceedings

         On March 19, 2007, Maddox was indicted for attempted escape in the second degree and promoting prison contraband in the first degree in his 2007 Case, Cr. No. 07-1-0139.[2] Although he was in custody on other charges, he was not formally arrested until October 14, 2008.

         On April 8, 2009, Maddox moved to dismiss the 2007 Case for violation of his speedy trial rights under the federal and state constitutions and Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (“HRPP”) 48.

         On May 15, 2009, the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawaii (“circuit court”) orally ruled that the State had violated HRPP Rule 48 and that the indictment should be dismissed without prejudice. Maddox orally moved to appeal at the hearing and gave a written notice of appeal to his trial counsel to file, although the transcript of the May 15, 2009 hearing has been lost, and the docket does not reflect either motion. See Pet'r Ex. J, ECF No. 1-3.

         On May 29, 2009, in the 2009 case, the State reindicted Maddox on the same charges that were dismissed in the 2007 Case. Cr. No. 09-1-0284[3]. Maddox, proceeding pro se, immediately filed a “Second Notice of Appeal” in the 2007 Case, appealing the dismissal of the charges without prejudice and asserting ineffective assistance of counsel.[4] See Maddox v. State, 141 Haw. 196, 200 (Haw. 2017).

         On June 2 and 3, 2009, Maddox moved to dismiss the 2009 Case with prejudice and withdrew the Second Notice of Appeal in the 2007 Case, reasoning that it would be moot if the circuit court granted his motion.

         On June 9, 2009, however, Maddox filed a “Third Notice of Appeal” in the 2007 Case, again appealing its dismissal without prejudice.

         On August 25, 2009, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”) dismissed Maddox's appeal in the 2007 Case for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the circuit court had not yet entered a written order of dismissal. See State v. Maddox, 2009 WL 2841282, at *1 (Haw. App. Aug. 25, 2009). The ICA further held, “more significantly for the purpose of appellate review, the entry of a written order of dismissal would not constitute an appealable judgment because the circuit court has not entered any sentence against [ ] Maddox. Thus, Hawaii Revised Statutes [(“HRS”)] § 641-11 (Supp. 2008) does not authorize [ ] Maddox's appeal.” Id. (citation omitted).[5]

         On January 7, 2010, the circuit court entered its written order dismissing Maddox's 2007 Case without prejudice pursuant to HRPP 48.[6] Maddox says that he was never provided notice that the 2007 Case was formally dismissed and, consequently, he did not appeal.

         On or about June 24, 2009, Maddox was released on bond in the 2009 Case.

         On June 28, 2010, Maddox entered a no contest plea to both counts in the 2009 Case and to a separate charge of terroristic threatening in the second degree in a different case pursuant to a plea agreement. The plea agreement waived Maddox's right to appeal the 2009 Case.

         On August 27, 2010, the circuit court sentenced Maddox to probation for five years in the 2009 Case and one year probation for the terroristic threatening offense, to be served concurrently. See Cr. No. 09-1-0284, 08/27/2010 Docket Entry. Judgment entered on August 30, 2010. Maddox did not appeal.

         On May 5, 2011, the circuit court issued a bench warrant against Maddox for a probation violation. On June 14, 2011, a hearing was held and Maddox was released again on bond pending investigation. Maddox's bond was revoked on or about February 16, 2012. On June 21, 2012, Maddox was arrested in California; he was returned to Hawaii on or about July 9, 2012. The circuit court appointed Maddox counsel for a minimum term hearing to be scheduled before the Hawaii Paroling Authority (“HPA”).

         On February 19, 2013, Maddox agreed to a second plea agreement in the 2009 Case, in which he admitted to violating the terms and conditions of his probation. He also entered no contest pleas in two other unrelated cases and, on April 25, 2013, the circuit court sentenced him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of ten years and five years in the 2009 Case and concurrent one-year prison terms for the unrelated offenses.

         On April 26, 2013, Maddox filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief pursuant to HRPP Rule 40 (“Rule 40 Petition”) in the 2009 Case alleging numerous grounds for relief regarding both the 2007 and the 2009 Cases.

         On August 21, 2014, the circuit court denied the Rule 40 Petition without a hearing, concluding that all grounds for relief were previously ruled upon or raised prior to Maddox entering into the plea agreement in the 2009 Case. This dismissal was without prejudice pending a hearing on Maddox's motion for reconsideration of sentencing credit for time served.

         On September 2, 2014, Maddox filed a Motion for Credit for Time ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.