Stewart v. Kelley, No. 17-1517 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner after he was convicted of raping an adult woman with the mental capacity of a young child and sentenced to seventy years in prison as a habitual offender. The court held that, under Arkansas law, parole-eligibility determinations by the Department of Corrections did not constitute a modification of a prison sentence. Therefore, trial counsel's deficient performance in this case did not deprive petitioner of a due process claim that Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-609(b) should not apply when the jury, court, and defendant were unaware of the Act and did not intend for the Act to apply to the judgment. Although the state court improperly instructed the jury that petitioner would be eligible for parole after serving 70% of his sentence if sentenced to a term of years, petitioner was not prejudiced under Strickland v. Washington when his trial counsel failed to correct the error.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Beam and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. The state court improperly instructed the jury that Stewart would would be eligible for parole after serving 70% of his sentence if sentenced to a term of years; Stewart was actually ineligible for parole because of a prior violent felony conviction. The jury gave Stewart a 70 year sentence. Stewart claims counsel was ineffective in failing to object to or otherwise challenge the erroneous instruction and that he was prejudiced by the error because if the jury had been properly instructed there is a reasonable probability they would have given him a shorter sentence. Held, on this record trial counsel's deficient performance in failing to correct the instructional error of the prosecutor and the trial court did not establish Strickland prejudice sufficient to undermine the court's confidence in the outcome of the proceedings.
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.