JONES v. STATE OF ARK., 929 F.2d 375 (8th Cir. 1991)

KENNETH JONES, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF ARKANSAS, APPELLEE.

No. 89-2013.United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.Submitted October 11, 1990.
Decided March 27, 1991.

Page 376

Brian Allen Brown, Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.

Jack Gillian, Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Before LAY, Chief Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and VAN SICKLE,[*] Senior District Judge.

LAY, Chief Judge.

[1] We grant the petition for rehearing filed by the state of Arkansas; we vacate our prior opinion and now file this opinion as our amended judgment. [2] Kenneth Jones appeals the magistrate’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988).[1]
Jones alleges numerous grounds for reversal. We need focus only on his claim that the state denied him due process when he was sentenced under an Arkansas statute that on its face did not apply to him. We reverse the judgment of the magistrate and order that the writ be conditionally granted.[2]

[3] BACKGROUND
[4] The state charged Jones with burglary and aggravated robbery that occurred in May, 1983. At the time, aggravated robbery was classified as a class Y felony and robbery a class B felony under Arkansas law. Jones had two prior felony convictions for burglary, both while he was a juvenile. Under the Arkansas habitual offender statute, a repeat offender can be charged with the primary felony and with being a habitual offender if the offender has the requisite number of prior felonies. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-1001 (Supp. 1981). In such cases, the defendant receives a bifurcated trial. If the jury finds the defendant guilty of the predicate offense, the judge then determines the number of prior felony convictions the jury may consider in fixing punishment. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-1005 (Supp. 1981) (current version at Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-502 (1987)). The state has the burden to prove the existence and validity of prior convictions. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-1003 (Supp. 1981) (current version at Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-504 (1987)). If the

Page 377

judge finds that the defendant, as a factual matter, does not have the requisite number of prior felony convictions to be a habitual offender under the statutory definition, the jury fixes punishment in the normal manner under the general sentencing statute.[3] If the judge determines the defendant has the requisite number of prior felonies to be classified as a habitual offender, the judge informs the jury of the number and nature of the prior offenses and the jury then fixes punishment using the penalties in the habitual offender statute.[4]

[5] The state elected to charge Jones as a habitual offender. Jones was tried in December, 1983. After the jury returned guilty verdicts on the aggravated robbery and burglary counts, the judge conducted a hearing in chambers in which the state offered proof of the two previous convictions. The trial judge found that the two convictions were valid. The state legislature had recently amended the jurisdictional portion of the habitual offender statute, making it applicable to defendants with “more than one (1) but less than four (4) felonies.” Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-1001 (Supp. 1983). Prior to the 1983 amendment, a defendant had to have at least three prior felony convictions. Applying the amended version of the statute, the judge then instructed the jurors that since Jones had two prior felony convictions, he was a habitual offender. In accord with the habitual offender statute, the jury fixed Jones’ sentence at life imprisonment plus thirty years.[5] [6] Jones’ conviction was upheld by the Arkansas Supreme Court Jones v. State, 283 Ark. 308, 675 S.W.2d 825 (1984). State post-conviction relief was denied. Jones then filed this federal habeas petition. The magistrate entered final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (1988), denying relief. This appeal followed.

[7] ANALYSIS I. A.
[8] Jones argues that he was denied due process because he was sentenced under a statute that was not in effect at the time he committed his crime.[6] Jones was found guilty of committing an offense that occurred on May 3, 1983. He was sentenced under the habitual offender statute, as amended by Act 409 of 1983, that on its face states it applies only to a “defendant who is convicted of a felony committed after June 30, 1983.” Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-1001(1) (Supp. 1983) (emphasis added).[7]

Page 378

[9] The version of the habitual offender statute in effect when Jones committed his offense required a defendant to have more than two previous felony convictions and thus Jones could not have been validly sentenced under it.[8] Jones should, therefore, have been sentenced under the general sentencing statute, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-901 (Supp. 1981). Because the trial court found the habitual offender scheme applicable when Jones had two previous felony convictions, the court must have been proceeding under § 41-1001 as amended by Act 409 of 1983. Jones argues that the trial court’s error in invoking the amended habitual offender statute resulted in an ex post facto application of the law, denying him due process.

B.
[10] A violation of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 3 (Congress); Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 (states), occurs when a criminal law is applied retrospectively to events occurring before enactment of the law, and the offender is disadvantaged by that application. Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 29, 101 S.Ct. 960, 964, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981). In Young v. Lockhart, 892 F.2d 1348 (8th Cir. 1989), this court found an ex post facto violation occurred when an Arkansas defendant was sentenced for a 1979 offense under a sentencing classification scheme enacted in 1981. Id. at 1353-54.[9] Sentencing Jones under the version of the habitual offender statute as amended by Act 409 of 1983 clearly shows retroactive application.

[11] Although conceding that the wrong sentencing statute was used, the state contends that Jones was not thereby disadvantaged or prejudiced because Jones could have received essentially the same sentence had the jury properly sentenced him under the general sentencing statute, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-901 (Supp. 1981). That provision provided that a defendant convicted of a class Y felony (which includes aggravated robbery) could be sentenced to “not less than ten (10) years and not more than forty (40) years, or life.” Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-901(1)(a) (Supp. 1981). A class B felony (which includes burglary) carries a sentence of from five to twenty years. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-901(1)(c) (Supp. 1981). The sentence Jones received under the habitual offender statute, which is essentially life imprisonment, is within the range authorized by section 41-901, the statute the jury should have considered in fixing punishment. Therefore, the state argues that the use of the wrong sentencing statute is harmless error. [12] The state’s contention is seriously flawed. We previously have observed that because the state is required to prove facts beyond a reasonable doubt in a separate proceeding in which both sides present evidence and factual findings are made, sentencing under the Arkansas habitual offender statute is similar to the traditional trial process of determining guilt or innocence Nelson v. Lockhart, 828 F.2d 446,

Page 379

449 (8th Cir. 1987), rev’d on other grounds, 488 U.S. 33, 109 S.Ct. 285, 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988). Sentencing under the habitual offender scheme is thus procedurally and qualitatively quite different from sentencing under the general felony sentencing statute.

[13] In addition, the very purpose of the Arkansas habitual offender procedure is to enhance punishment of recidivists. Washington v. State, 273 Ark. 482, 621 S.W.2d 216, 218 (1981). Reflecting this goal, the permissible sentence ranges for a term of years generally are higher under section 41-1001 than under section 41-901. See Rogers v. State, 10 Ark. App. 19, 660 S.W.2d 949, 951 (1983). For a class Y felony under the general sentencing statute, the authorized term of years is from ten to forty years, while under the habitual offender statute the term of years runs from twenty to sixty years. Although it is true that both statutes allow the jury to sentence a defendant to life imprisonment, the jury may well have been influenced by the higher penalties presented to it under section 41-1001. Cf. Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343, 346, 100 S.Ct. 2227, 2229, 65 L.Ed.2d 175 (1980) (finding jury’s sentencing discretion in habitual offender case impaired by erroneous instruction on the applicable penalties, even though the sentence imposed was within the range the jury could have imposed if properly instructed).[10] Even more apparent is the inherent prejudice to Jones from having the jury consider his two previous convictions and being instructed that Jones was a habitual offender. See Shells v. State, 22 Ark. App. 62, 733 S.W.2d 743
(1987).[11] As Justice (then Judge) Cardozo wrote, “The genius of our criminal law is violated when punishment is enhanced in the face of reasonable doubt as to the facts leading to enhancement.” People v. Reese, 258 N.Y. 89, 101, 179 N.E. 305, 308 (1932); see also Cox v. Hutto, 619 F.2d 731, 734-35 (8th Cir. 1980).[12] [14] The Arkansas Supreme Court has held that sentencing a defendant as a habitual offender when that statute did not apply to him is prejudicial error requiring that the defendant either be re-tried or have his sentence modified to the minimum applicable punishment under the general sentencing statute. Ellis v. State, 270 Ark. 243, 603 S.W.2d 891, 892 (1980); McDonald v. State, 266 Ark. 56, 582 S.W.2d 272, 274 (1979). We conclude that the erroneous application of the habitual offender statute

Page 380

prejudiced Jones.[13]

C.
[15] We hold that sentencing Jones under the habitual offender statute, as amended by Act 409 in 1983, which was not in force when Jones committed his offenses, violates the ex post facto clause of the Constitution. See Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423, 435-36, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 2453, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987) (holding that application of state sentencing statute not in effect when defendant committed offense violates ex post facto provision) United States v. Swanger, 919 F.2d 94, 95 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (holding that application of federal sentencing guidelines amendments not in force when defendant committed offense violates ex post facto clause); United States v. Suarez, 911 F.2d 1016, 1021-22 (5th Cir. 1990) (same).[14]

II.
[16] The state does not deny that Jones was sentenced under a statute that did not apply to him. The state asserts, however, that Jones is raising this issue for the very first time. It argues that he is barred from raising new issues on appeal and from raising issues not presented previously to the state courts.[15] Generally, appellate courts will refuse to consider issues not raised in the district court. Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 556, 61 S.Ct. at 719, 721, 85 L.Ed. 1037 (1941) United States v. Glass, 720 F.2d 21, 23 (8th Cir. 1983). A special exception exists, however, for instances when “injustice might otherwise result.” Hormel, 312 U.S. at 557, 61 S.Ct. at 721; Beavers v. Lockhart, 755 F.2d 657, 662 (8th Cir. 1985). This case falls within that narrow exception, as Jones has presented a compelling case for review. See United States v. McCall, 915 F.2d 811, 814 (2d Cir. 1990) (exercising discretion to hear claim, not presented below, that defendant was sentenced under the wrong Guidelines section); Beavers, 755 F.2d at 662
(exercising discretion to consider habeas petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance not raised in district court).

[17] The state also asserts that Jones’ failure to raise his claim in the state courts is a procedural default barring this court’s consideration of the claim. Normally, a habeas petitioner must show “cause” and “prejudice” to excuse the default. Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 87, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 2506, 53 L.Ed.2d 594
(1977). Although the Supreme Court believed that the cause and prejudice standard of Sykes would take care of most cases in which the habeas petitioner was a victim of a miscarriage of justice, it recognized that in a small number of extraordinary cases this would not be true. Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495-96, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 2649-50, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986). The Court thus developed a narrow exception to the procedural default rule which is directed toward “the imperative of correcting a fundamentally unjust incarceration.” Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 135, 102 S.Ct. 1558, 1576, 71 L.Ed.2d 783 (1981). The Court has subsequently expressed this exception as applying to incarcerations in which “a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent. . . .”Murray, 477 U.S. at 496,

Page 381

106 S.Ct. at 2649; see also Smith v. Armontrout, 888 F.2d 530, 545 (8th Cir. 1989).

[18] Although recognizing that the Carrier actual innocence exception did not translate easily into the sentencing phase of a capital trial, the Court nevertheless did so in Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 537, 106 S.Ct. 2661, 2667, 91 L.Ed.2d 434
(1986). If one is “actually innocent” of the sentence imposed, a federal habeas court can excuse the procedural default to correct a fundamentally unjust incarceration. Id.; Dugger v. Adams, 489 U.S. 401, 411 n. 6, 109 S.Ct. 1211, 1217 n. 6, 103 L.Ed.2d 435
(1989); Smith v. Armontrout, 888 F.2d at 545; Stokes v. Armontrout, 893 F.2d 152, 156 (8th Cir. 1989).[16] It would be difficult to think of one who is more “innocent” of a sentence than a defendant sentenced under a statute that by its very terms does not even apply to the defendant. [19] Jones’ case falls within the extremely narrow band of cases in which a federal habeas court can grant the writ based on a miscarriage of justice. As Justice Frankfurter wrote almost half a century ago, “[t]he history of liberty has largely been the history of observance of procedural safeguards.” McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 347, 63 S.Ct. 608, 616, 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943).

[20] CONCLUSION
[21] Jones was sentenced under an amended version of the Arkansas habitual offender statute not in force when he committed his crime and which on its face did not apply to him. This violated the ex post facto clause of the Constitution, denying Jones due process.

[22] The judgment of the magistrate denying habeas relief is REVERSED and the case remanded. The district court is ordered to grant the writ unless the state elects to re-try Jones or re-sentence him properly under Arkansas law within 120 days of the filing of this opinion.[17]

Page 382