Dretke, Doug, Dir., Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice v. Haley, Michael (05/03/2004)

Questions presented: Whether the "actual innocence" exception to the procedural default rule concerning federal habeas corpus claims should apply to noncapital sentencing errors?

BY DEBORAH HIRSCH, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

The calculator Michael Haley stole from a Texas Wal-Mart in 1997 was worth $50. But the punishment the jury gave him was more than 16 years in prison.

Normally, such a minor theft under Texas law can only result in a maximum of one year of county jail. Since Haley had two previous thefts on his record, though, swiping the calculator was considered a "state jail felony" punishable by up to two years in state prison.

But Haley also had two previous felony charges for attempted robbery and amphetamine delivery. According to state statute, two sequential felonies meaning the first conviction is finalized before the second occurs can increase future sentencing up to 20 years. So the jury classified Haley as a habitual offender and gave him 16 and a half years behind bars.

Technically, though, Haley did not qualify for the punishment because he had committed the second felony three days before the conviction for the first one was officially completed. From a legal perspective, he was "actually innocent" of that offense at the time of his calculator shoplifting and therefore only eligible for the maximum two year prison sentence.

But the jury didn't realize this, and neither did Haley, until after the first round of appeals when he was allowed to use such an argument for a reversal.

Haley pointed out the error while acting as his own lawyer in state court. The state acknowledged the mistake but said nothing could be done because, under Texas procedural rules, Haley hadnt brought it up earlier in the direct appeal.

Haley tried again, submitting his argument to federal court. Federal courts usually cant give habeas relief if a state court denies it on procedural grounds unless there is some exception like an actual innocence claim. These claims can be reviewed in capital cases, but how they apply to other sentencing is vague, especially given differing rulings among circuit courts. The 7th, 8th and 10th circuits have all said actual innocence cant be applied to noncapital sentencing. The 2nd and 4th circuits have said just the opposite.

In Haley's case, a federal magistrate ruled that the state had not sufficiently detailed Haleys previous convictions, thus making him "innocent" of a habitual offense. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, holding unanimously that the actual innocence exception should apply to noncapital cases involving habitual felony sentences.

"If we were to condemn Haley to suffer the consequences of an affirmative finding which never existed, he would continue serving a sentence of which he is in fact innocent," Judge Carl Stewart wrote. "This is a classic example of a fundamental miscarriage of justice, precisely what the actual innocence exception was created to prevent."

The state of Texas, however, says Haley is not actually innocent in the substantive way the concept is usually used he had indeed committed this and numerous other crimes and there is no evidence to the contrary. "The only innocence is the product of an undisputed technical legal error: under the terms of the statute, one of his felonies was committed three days too early," the state claims.

Since noncapital sentencing can be arbitrary, the state says defendants shouldnt be "innocent" of their punishment unless they are proven to be innocent of the crime.

The United States sides with Texas, adding that applying actual innocence to non-capital sentencing could allow costly belated attacks on prison sentences when there is not necessarily any valid reason for them.

"Extending the actual innocence exception to routine noncapital sentencing would disrupt the balance reflected in the exception between the interest in obtaining finality in the criminal process and the interest in ensuring justice in the individual case," U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson wrote in an amicus brief supporting Texas.

Since it is common to challenge factual findings related to sentencing, this would lead to a dramatic and unnecessary increase in appeals court caseloads, the Solicitor General added.

Haleys lawyer, Eric M. Albritton, refuted that, saying the 5th Circuit ruling only applies to the few people who have clear and convincing evidence that they received a sentence they legally should not be eligible for. Whereas the 2nd Circuits previous ruling on the same issue allowed a broad application of actual innocence claims to all sentencing, the 5th Circuit limits it to habitual felonies.

"It will always be very, very narrow," Albritton said. "It's a narrow safety valve to make sure that people who are innocent of their punishment do not spend years and years in prison because they did not adequately comply with a state procedural rule."

Haley previously spent time in prison for his earlier crimes along with seven years for the calculator shoplifting. He was released in July 2003 under the orders of a federal judge, even though his attorney says the state tried "like hell" to keep him in prison.

"It's a fairly outrageous thing for the state of Texas to do to admit that someone is innocent of the punishment and nevertheless insist that they spend eight times the maximum sentencing in prison because they failed to comply with the procedural rule," Albritton said. "It's the ultimate triumph of form over substance."

The U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case for review in October 2003 and allowed Haley to have his case heard without costs.