United States District Court, D. Hawaii
MICKEY A. MADDOX, #A0723747, Petitioner,
TODD THOMAS, Respondent.
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AND DENYING REQUEST FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE FROM DETENTION
Derrick K. Watson United States District Judge
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”).
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.
State Court Proceedings
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. Although he was in custody on other
charges, he was not formally arrested until October 14, 2008.
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
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.
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. 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. See Maddox v. State, 141 Haw.
196, 200 (Haw. 2017).
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.
9, 2009, however, Maddox filed a “Third Notice of
Appeal” in the 2007 Case, again appealing its dismissal
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).
January 7, 2010, the circuit court entered its written order
dismissing Maddox's 2007 Case without prejudice pursuant
to HRPP 48. Maddox says that he was never provided
notice that the 2007 Case was formally dismissed and,
consequently, he did not appeal.
about June 24, 2009, Maddox was released on bond in the 2009
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.
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.
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”).
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.
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.
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.
September 2, 2014, Maddox filed a Motion for Credit for Time