Hill v. Rivera, No. 18-3756 (8th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 where petitioner was convicted in 2012, after trial by general court-martial, of rape committed in 1998. At the time of petitioner's conviction and direct appeals, there was no statute of limitations for prosecution of rape under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). In 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces held for the first time that a five-year statute of limitations applied to rape in United States v. Mangahas, 77 M.J. 220, 222-24 (C.A.A.F. 2018). However, in United States v. Briggs, 2020 WL 7250099, at 2 (U.S. Dec. 10, 2020), the Supreme Court held that there is not a statute of limitations under the UCMJ for rapes committed between 1986 and 2006. Therefore, the court held that petitioner's conviction was not untimely.

Court Description: [Benton, Author, with Gruender and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. For the court's prior opinion in this matter, see Hill v. Rivera, 724 Fed. Appx 511 (8th Cir. 2018). In U.S. v. Briggs, 2020 WL 7250099, at 2 (U.S. Dec. 10, 2020), the Supreme Court held there is not a statute of limitations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for rapes committed between 1986 and 2006, and Hill's conviction in this matter was not untimely.

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3756 ___________________________ Steven E. Hill Plaintiff - Appellant v. C V Rivera, Warden Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena ____________ Submitted: September 27, 2019 Filed: December 23, 2020 ____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ BENTON, Circuit Judge. The district court1 dismissed Steven E. Hill’s habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Hill v. Rivera, 2018 WL 6182637, at *4 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 27, 2018). He appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. 1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, now retired. In 2012, Hill, then a Sergeant in the United States Army, was convicted after trial by general court-martial of a rape committed in 1998. At the time of his conviction and direct appeals, there was no statute of limitations for prosecution of rape under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). See, e.g., United States v. Stebbins, 61 M.J. 366, 369 (C.A.A.F. 2005); Willenbring v. Neurauter, 48 M.J. 152, 180 (C.A.A.F. 1998). In 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces held for the first time that a five-year statute of limitations applied to rape. See United States v. Mangahas, 77 M.J. 220, 222-24 (C.A.A.F. 2018). Hill appealed to this court, arguing the new five-year statute of limitations applied retroactively to invalidate his conviction. See Hill v. Rivera, 724 Fed. Appx. 511, 511-12 (8th Cir. 2018). This court remanded to the district court to consider the applicable statute of limitations in light of Mangahas. Id. at 512. The district court dismissed the habeas petition, ruling Mangahas inapplicable. Hill, 2018 WL 6182637, at *1. Hill again appeals. This month, in United States v. Briggs, the United States Supreme Court abrogated Mangahas, thus voiding the premise of Hill’s appeal. See United States v. Briggs, 2020 WL 7250099, at *2 (U.S. Dec. 10, 2020) (holding there is no statute of limitations under the UCMJ for rapes committed between 1986 and 2006). Hill’s conviction was not untimely. ******* The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ -2-

Primary Holding

In United States v. Briggs, the Supreme Court held that there is not a statute of limitations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for rapes committed between 1986 and 2006, and thus petitioner's conviction was not untimely.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.