Hicks v. Frame

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · July 23, 2025 · No. 23-6447

Summary

This Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion addresses whether a state prisoner is excused from the statutory exhaustion requirement for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 due to decades-long delays and judicial bias in his state postconviction proceedings. The court holds that while West Virginia's state system was historically ineffective, the present-tense language of the statute requires current ineffectiveness to excuse exhaustion. Because the state court recently resolved the petitioner's nearly thirty-year-old postconviction petition on the merits, the exhaustion requirement applies, and the district court's dismissal is affirmed.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Richardson; Thacker; Rushing
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decision date
July 23, 2025
Docket number
23-6447
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia's dismissal of a federal habeas petition for failure to exhaust state remedies.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Alan L. Hicks v. Jonathan Frame
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

federal habeas corpusstate post-conviction reliefstandard of reviewappellate procedurestatutory interpretation

Practice areas

criminal procedureappellate procedurepost-conviction relief

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the statutory exhaustion requirement under 28 U.S.C. §2254(b)(1)(A) is excused by the passage of time and alleged ineffectiveness of West Virginia’s post‑conviction process under §2254(b)(1)(B)(ii).

Holdings

  1. The district court’s dismissal is affirmed; the delay in West Virginia’s post‑conviction proceedings does not satisfy the present‑ineffectiveness exception, so Hicks is not excused from exhausting state remedies.

Key quotations

The exhaustion requirement is excused, however, if either “there is an absence of available State corrective process,” or if “circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.” (at 8)
The key feature of the statutory text at issue for our purposes is its tense. “Consistent with normal usage, we . . . look[] to Congress’ choice of verb tense to ascertain a statute’s temporal reach.” (at 15)

Factual background

Alan Hicks was convicted of murder, conspiracy, and grand larceny in West Virginia in 1988 and sentenced to life without parole. He later filed a federal habeas petition alleging numerous constitutional errors, but the district court dismissed it because he had not exhausted state post‑conviction remedies. Hicks contends that the decades‑long delay and procedural mishandling in West Virginia’s post‑conviction system excuse the exhaustion requirement.

Procedural history

Hicks was convicted in 1988 and sentenced to life without parole. He filed a federal habeas petition in 2021, which the district court dismissed for failure to exhaust state post‑conviction remedies. Hicks appealed the dismissal to the Fourth Circuit.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…