A Little Rock man who has been in prison for nearly six years on a methamphetamine conviction saw his hopes for a new trial dashed when a federal district judge recently overruled a federal magistrate judge's recommendation.
Still, Craig Lambert, the attorney who sought a new trial for James Edward Daniels Jr., 45, and who expected the district judge to follow the magistrate judge's new-trial recommendation, said last week that he is still hopeful.
Lambert noted that even though U.S. District Judge Leon Holmes denied the recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray, Holmes granted a certificate of appeal to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
There is no automatic right to an appeal in a habeas corpus case, such as the one Daniels brought, but a certificate is granted when a district judge decides an issue is "debatable among jurists of reason," Lambert said.
"I always knew the 8th Circuit was going to be the one to decide this case," the attorney said, noting that if Holmes had accepted Ray's June 7 recommendation to grant a new trial, the Arkansas attorney general's office was certain to appeal.
Lambert filed a recent notice of appeal, after Holmes disagreed with Ray that the presiding state trial judge, Bynum Gibson, fast-tracked Daniels' 2010 trial at the expense of Daniels' Sixth Amendment right to counsel of his choice.
Within four months of his arrest on Aug. 26, 2010, Daniels was convicted in Drew County Circuit Court of possession of methamphetamine and marijuana, both with intent to deliver, and was sentenced to 65 years behind bars.
The convictions stemmed from Daniels' arrest after drug-task-force officers stopped his vehicle on a Drew County road. As the officers started walking toward Daniels, he fled. In the process, his vehicle struck the opened door of a police car, injuring an officer.
After a milelong pursuit, Daniels was arrested. He admitted that marijuana found in bags alongside the road were his, but denied ownership of methamphetamine also found in bags. He claimed that it belonged to a passenger riding with him, Daniels' wife and his stepdaughter.
At Daniels' Oct. 12, 2010, arraignment, Circuit Judge Gibson announced that he was "fast-tracking" the case out of concern for Daniels and the other man being detained unnecessarily before trial, and set the trial date for Dec. 14, 2010.
Ray's order said a transcript showed that Gibson urged the parties to work out a plea agreement that day, in an effort to alleviate concerns about transporting Daniels between a state prison unit and Drew County for hearings. Daniels was on parole when he was arrested, and attorneys expected the parole to be revoked as a result.
In a 51-page order, Ray wrote, "While there is much that commands 'swift justice,' the trial court's proposal to use a plea bargain 'to be done with the case in two minutes' was far too long on swiftness and far too short on justice," especially since Daniels was a habitual offender and, as such, faced a possible life sentence if convicted.
Ray noted that Gibson called a recess at the arraignment to give Daniels' public defender and the prosecutor time to discuss a plea offer, though Daniels rejected the 80-year offer.
A partial transcript of the proceeding, cited in Ray's order, said Daniels then spoke up, asking for an opportunity to let his parents hire an attorney of his choice, but that Gibson said he wouldn't allow the hiring of a new attorney to postpone the trial.
In Holmes' 34-page order, filed Sept. 19, he wrote, "Contrary to Daniels' argument, the judge did not, so far as the record shows, participate in the plea negotiations." Holmes noted that in response to a question from Daniels' attorney about what he could do about the transportation issues, Gibson "suggested that the prosecutor make a plea offer, but he did not make any suggestion as to what the plea offer would be."
Holmes said Gibson acknowledged that Daniels had a right to select his attorney, but warned him from the outset that his policy was to deny postponements based on a new attorney being hired.
A private attorney who was hired for Daniels later backed out, and Gibson denied the public defender's motion to postpone the trial so she could have time to prepare. He also told the parties that he wanted to try Daniels and his co-defendant at the same time, and that the other man had been in jail since August 2010, which was too long to wait until the court's next available trial date in February 2011.
Holmes said Gibson's decision seemed to rest on concerns about his docket and about the amount of time the other man would have to wait in jail to be tried.
"Some of the trial judge's comments may have been ill considered," Holmes said. "Whether they were or not is not for this court to decide. Even if they were, they do not show that the Arkansas Court of Appeals unreasonably applied clearly established federal law when it affirmed the trial court's denial of Daniels' motion for continuance."
Metro on 10/09/2016