Sullivan v. Beltz

Background

William Joseph Sullivan was convicted in Minnesota state court in October 2016 of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and sentenced to 180 months in prison. He filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging that conviction. His grounds involved his inability to examine or cross-examine three witnesses, newly discovered evidence, and a plea offer that he said his state-court attorney failed to communicate.

A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition on all three grounds. The recommendation treated the witness-examination and uncommunicated-plea-offer claims as untimely. It treated the newly discovered evidence claim as involving both procedural default and failure to exhaust available state remedies. Sullivan and respondent Tracey Beltz objected to the recommendation. Sullivan was representing himself.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Sullivan’s objection did not identify specific parts of the recommendation and repeated arguments already presented to the magistrate judge. The court therefore did not conduct a full fresh review of those portions. It reviewed the portions challenged by Beltz anew.

Beltz specifically argued that the claim based on newly discovered video evidence should be dismissed with prejudice because a claim of actual innocence based only on newly discovered evidence is not a proper habeas claim. Beltz also argued that the restriction on later habeas petitions should apply. The court agreed that newly discovered evidence alone was insufficient to obtain habeas relief, but explained that Sullivan might be able to use the evidence in a later habeas petition raising valid claims after exhausting available state remedies. Because an available state-court remedy required dismissal without prejudice, the court overruled Beltz’s objection.

The court found no clear error in the portions of the recommendation that were not specifically challenged. It also concluded that no reasonable jurist would debate the result and therefore did not issue a certificate of appealability.

Disposition

The court overruled Beltz’s objection and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. It dismissed Grounds 1 and 3 with prejudice as untimely. It dismissed Ground 2 with prejudice to the extent it relied on written statements from 2014, because that portion was procedurally defaulted. It dismissed Ground 2 without prejudice to the extent it relied on new video recordings, because Sullivan had not exhausted state-court remedies. The court also denied Sullivan’s § 2254 petition.

The court denied as moot Sullivan’s applications and motions concerning fees, release, newly discovered evidence, emergency release, venue, and appointment of counsel. It denied as moot Keith Ellison’s motion to dismiss. The order states that no certificate of appealability would issue.