Sanders v. Payne

Sanders v. Payne · United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division · July 14, 2025 · No. 4:22-cv-01240

Summary

This United States District Court recommended disposition addresses a pro se habeas corpus petition filed by state prisoner Jason Sanders challenging his Arkansas state court convictions for second-degree sexual assault. The magistrate judge finds that all of Sanders’s claims are procedurally defaulted because he failed to fairly present them to the state courts or exhaust available state remedies. Consequently, the court recommends denying the habeas petition with prejudice and dismissing a related declaratory judgment filing without prejudice.

Court
United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division
Writing for the Court
Jeromet Kearney
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
Decision date
July 14, 2025
Docket number
4:22-cv-01240
Procedural posture
Petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254(a)
Precedential value
unpublished
Parties
Jason Sanders v. Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Division of Correction
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

post-conviction reliefhabeas corpusstate post-conviction reliefcriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedurepost-conviction relief

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Sanders exhausted available state remedies before filing the federal habeas petition.
  2. Whether Sanders' claims are procedurally defaulted under Coleman and O’Sullivan.
  3. Whether the Arkansas Code §16‑90‑111 petition is a proper avenue for relief.
  4. Whether the declaratory‑judgment petition should be dismissed.

Holdings

  1. The petition is denied because Sanders did not fairly present his claims in state court and therefore has not exhausted state remedies.
  2. All four claims are procedurally defaulted and therefore dismissed.
  3. The petition is not a proper avenue because it addresses an illegal sentence on the face of the judgment, which Sanders does not have.
  4. The declaratory‑judgment petition is dismissed without prejudice.

Key quotations

The undersigned concludes Sanders did not fairly present his claims in state court, so the claims are procedurally defaulted.
Because Sanders entered an unconditional plea of nolo contendere, state procedural rules did not permit him to appeal his conviction and sentence.

Factual background

Sanders pleaded nolo contendere to two counts of second-degree sexual assault in an Arkansas circuit court, receiving concurrent ten‑year sentences. He later claimed he entered the plea based on a mistaken belief that the sentences would run concurrently with an existing sentence and raised several constitutional claims, none of which were raised in state court.

Procedural history

Sanders filed a habeas petition in federal court on Dec. 15, 2022 after pleading nolo contendere to two counts of second-degree sexual assault in Arkansas state court. The state court entered judgment on June 27, 2022. Sanders subsequently filed an amended petition and a separate declaratory‑judgment petition. The magistrate judge recommended denial of the habeas petition and dismissal of the declaratory‑judgment petition.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…