United States District Court, D. Hawaii
MICKEY A. MADDOX, #A0723747, Petitioner,
TODD THOMAS, Respondent.
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
WITH PREJUDICE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
DERRICK K. WATSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the court is Petitioner Mickey A. Maddox's Petition Under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person
in State Custody (“Petition”). Maddox challenges
his conviction and sentence in State v. Maddox, Cr.
No. 09-1-0284 (Haw. 2d Cir.) (“2009 Case”).
moved to dismiss the Petition on December 13, 2018.
See ECF Nos. 9 and 11 (duplicate). Maddox filed his
Response on January 7, 2019. ECF No. 19. The Court has
carefully reviewed the record herein and the full record in
Maddox v. Thomas, No. 1:18-cv-00133 DKW-RLP (D. Haw.
2018), through which Maddox originally challenged Cr. No.
09-1-0284. For the following reasons, the Petition is
DISMISSED with prejudice, and any request for a certificate
of appealability is DENIED.
March 19, 2007, Maddox was indicted for attempted escape in
the second degree and promoting prison contraband in the
first degree in State v. Maddox, Cr. No.
07-1-0139 (Haw. 2d Cir.) (“2007 Case”). On May
15, 2009, the circuit court orally dismissed the 2007 Case
without prejudice for violation of Maddox's speedy trial
rights under Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule
The circuit court stated that it would dismiss the case with
prejudice if the State failed to re-indict Maddox or hold a
probable cause determination by June 9, 2009. See
No. 1:18-cv-00133 DKW-RLP, ECF No. 1-23. Maddox says that he
instructed his trial counsel to file a notice of appeal, but
his attorney abandoned him after the circuit court orally
dismissed the case. See Maddox, 141 Haw. at 199-201.
Maddox filed two pro se notices of appeal, which the Hawaii
Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) dismissed for lack of
appellate jurisdiction because the circuit court had not yet
filed a written order of dismissal terminating the 2007 Case.
Id. at 200.
29, 2009, the State re-indicted Maddox in the 2009 Case on
identical charges to those dismissed in the 2007 Case. The
new indictment, however, stated that if Maddox was convicted,
he may be subject to extended term sentences as a persistent
and multiple offender. See Resp't Ex. C, ECF No.
January 7, 2010, the circuit court entered a written order
formally terminating the 2007 Case without prejudice. Maddox
says that he did not appeal this final determination because
he never received notice of the order. He alleges that if he
had been able to appeal, and was successful, he could not
have been convicted in the 2009 Case.
28, 2010, Maddox pled no contest to both charges in the 2009
Case pursuant to a plea agreement in which he waived his
right to appeal and agreed to dismiss all pending appeals and
motions in exchange for a sentence of probation. On August
27, 2010, the circuit court sentenced Maddox to five years
probation, and judgment was entered on August 30,
February 19, 2013, after a bench warrant had been issued for
revocation of probation and Maddox was extradited from
California to Hawaii, he admitted to violating the terms and
conditions of his probation in the 2009 Case. On April 25,
2013, the circuit court revoked Maddox's probation and
resentenced him to concurrent five- and ten-year sentences
for the two charges in the 2009 Case and entered a new
next day, April 26, 2013, Maddox filed an HRPP Rule 40
Petition for Post-Conviction Relief (“Rule 40
Petition”), in which he challenged, inter
alia, the dismissal without prejudice of the 2007 Case
(alleging abandonment by and ineffective assistance of
counsel), and numerous other issues relating to both the 2007
Case and the 2009 Case. See Maddox v. State,
2PR131000004 (Haw. Cir. 2013) (also referred to as SPP No.
13-1-0004). The circuit court denied the Rule 40 Petition in
its entirety, finding that all issues had been previously
raised and ruled upon, and thus, were procedurally defaulted
under HRPP Rule 40(a)(3).Resp't Ex. P. The ICA affirmed the
circuit court by summary disposition order on March 31, 2016.
See Resp't Ex. R; Maddox v. State, 2016
WL 1600699 (Haw. App. 2016).
December 14, 2017, the Hawaii Supreme Court found that Maddox
“raised colorable claims for post-conviction relief
based upon grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and
abandonment of representation by defense counsel” in
the 2007 Case. Maddox, 141 Haw. at 199. The
supreme court vacated the ICA and circuit court's
decisions and remanded the Rule 40 Petition to the circuit
court with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing on
Ground G only, regarding Maddox's claims that his trial
counsel in the 2007 Case was ineffective for failing to file
an appeal after Maddox requested that he do so and had
abandoned Maddox during a critical stage of the case.
Id. at 208. The Hawaii Supreme Court stated that,
“these facts, if true, would entitle Maddox to proceed
with his appeal [in the 2007 Case] at this juncture.”
Id. In so holding, the supreme court expressly
rejected Maddox's remaining claims, including all claims
specifically pertaining to the 2009 Case, as either waived or
without merit. See id., n.34 (discussing
Maddox's thirteen remaining claims).
January 10, 2018, the Hawaii Supreme Court denied
Maddox's request for reconsideration. Maddox is
represented by counsel in the Rule 40 Petition, but to date,
the circuit court has not issued an order regarding the Rule
40 Petition, and it remains pending. See Hawaii
State Judiciary, http://hoohiki.courts.hawaii.gov.
(2PR131000004 Maddox, last visited Mar. 27, 2019). Maddox is
scheduled to be released on April 1, 2019. See
April 9, 2018, Maddox filed a federal habeas action
challenging the judgments in the 2007 and 2009 Cases, raising
seven grounds for relief. See Maddox v. Thomas, No.
1:18-cv-00133 DKW-RLP, Pet., ECF No. 1. After the court
instructed Maddox to file a separate petition for each case,
he filed the present Petition on June 29, 2018, and the Clerk
of Court opened the present case. Pet., ECF No. 1.
the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(AEDPA), a petition for habeas corpus “shall not be
granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the
merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of
the claim” resulted in a decision that either
“was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, ”
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), or “was based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
evidence presented in the State court proceeding, ” 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
contends that Maddox's Rule 40 Petition remains pending
in the circuit court and argues that the Petition must
therefore be dismissed for lack of exhaustion because
available state court remedies remain.
argues that Respondent's characterization of his claims
is incorrect, conceding only that Ground One presents
“a new issue created by the State of Hawaii Supreme
Court's December 14, 2017 ruling.” Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID #8. Maddox further asserts that Respondent fails to
rebut his claims of constitutional error and urges the court
to consider his claims and immediately release him.