Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Needham v. State

United States District Court, D. Utah

January 11, 2018

AARON DAVID TRENT NEEDHAM, Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF UTAH, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

          JILL N. PARRISH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

         District Judge Jill N. Parrish Petitioner, Aaron David Trent Needham, has filed a pro se habeas corpus petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2016). Respondent, the State of Utah, has moved to dismiss the habeas corpus petition. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23).

         BACKGROUND

         Petitioner was convicted in Utah state court. Upon appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. State v. Needham, 391 P.3d 295, 296-97 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). Petitioner did not file a petition for certiorari in the Utah Supreme Court. Petitioner then filed an unsuccessful application for state post-conviction relief. The Utah Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's appeal of his unsuccessful application for state post-conviction relief. Needham v. State, No. 20170380-CA (Utah Ct. App. June 5, 2017) (dismissal order). He again did not file a petition for certiorari in the Utah Supreme Court. He now challenges his conviction in this federal habeas petition.

         ANALYSIS

         In its response to the petition, the State argues that Petitioner's issues are unexhausted and procedurally defaulted. The Court agrees.

         A. Exhaustion

         In general, before Petitioner may seek review of a Utah conviction in federal court, he must exhaust all remedies in Utah courts. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b)(1)(A), (c); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275-76 (1971); Knapp v. Henderson, No. 97-1188, 1998 WL 778774, at *2 (10th Cir. Nov. 9, 1998). To exhaust his remedies, Petitioner must properly present to the highest available Utah court the federal constitutional issues on which he seeks relief. See Picard, 404 U.S. at 276; Knapp, 1998 WL 778774, at *2-3. Here, because he did not petition for writ of certiorari as to his failed direct appeal and application for state post-conviction relief, Petitioner has not presented any of the issues upon which he seeks relief to Utah's highest court, the Utah Supreme Court. Consequently, Petitioner has not exhausted his remedies, as he is required to do by § 2254(b)(1)(A).

         B. Procedural Default

         The United States Supreme Court has declared that when a petitioner has “‘failed to exhaust his state remedies and the court to which the petitioner would be required to present his claims in order to meet the exhaustion requirement would now find the claims procedurally barred' the claims are considered exhausted and procedurally defaulted for purposes of federal habeas relief.” Thomas v. Gibson, 218 F.3d 1213, 1221 (10th Cir. 2000) (quoting Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 735 n.1 (1991)). Utah's Post-Conviction Remedies Act, in pertinent part, states:

A person is not eligible for relief under this chapter upon any ground that:
(b) was raised or addressed at trial or on appeal;
(c) could have been but was not raised at trial or ...

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.