Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, a Mississippi prisoner sought authorization to file a successive habeas corpus application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 1981 conviction and life sentence. The prisoner alleged that the Mississippi Parole Board breached a plea agreement by denying him parole, despite federal authorities granting parole for a related kidnapping sentence. The claim centered on the contention that the denial of parole violated the plea agreement, which the prisoner only became aware of in 2011. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244, successive applications require certification of either newly discovered evidence or a new retroactive constitutional rule. The court found that the parole denial claims did not challenge the underlying conviction and thus were not successive, while the plea agreement breach did challenge the conviction but failed to meet the prima facie requirements for a successive application. Additionally, the court ruled that the claim of actual innocence, previously addressed, was to be dismissed. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's transfer order, dismissing and denying portions of the motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings. This decision is non-precedential and not to be published.
Legal Issues Addressed
Actual Innocence and Prior Applicationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Claims of actual innocence that have been previously addressed in an initial application necessitate dismissal in subsequent applications.
Reasoning: Additionally, his claim of actual innocence was previously raised and addressed in his first application, necessitating its dismissal.
Breach of Plea Agreement and Successive Applicationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Claims asserting breach of a plea agreement that challenge the conviction must meet prima facie requirements for a successive application. Trotter failed to satisfy these requirements for his claims related to the parole denial.
Reasoning: Trotter's assertion that the denial of parole breaches his plea agreement does challenge the conviction and was appropriately transferred. Nonetheless, he has not satisfied the prima facie requirements under § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii) for a successive application concerning this challenge.
Successive Habeas Corpus Applications Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A successive application requires certification of newly discovered evidence or a new constitutional rule. Trotter's claim regarding parole denial is not considered successive as it does not challenge the underlying conviction and was not available in the initial application.
Reasoning: Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2), a successive application requires certification demonstrating either newly discovered evidence or a new retroactive constitutional rule that was previously unavailable.
Transfer of Cases Under 28 U.S.C. § 1631subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's transfer of Trotter's case was partially affirmed and partially reversed, indicating mixed procedural adherence to the transfer statute.
Reasoning: The court affirms in part and reverses in part the district court’s transfer order; Trotter’s motion for leave to file a successive application is dismissed in part and denied in part.