In 2003, Randy James Newcomb was arrested for first degree driving while impaired and for felony test refusal. Newcomb was sentenced to four years imprisonment, but the sentence was stayed for seven years. In 2007, Newcomb was arrested for violating his probation, was sent to jail, and was again released in 2009. Under Minnesota law, if a person is arrested for a first degree DWI and that person’s sentence is stayed, the sentencing court must place that person on five years of supervised release. Evidently, the sentencing court failed to do this with Newcomb. Once Newcomb was imprisoned, a correctional officer wrote to the sentencing court asking that the court add a term of conditional release. The judge did not respond, but someone within the Minnesota Department of Corrections administratively added a conditional release to Newcomb’s sentence.
Thus, Newcomb’s sentence without the conditional release was set to expire April 13, 2010. If, on the other hand, the conditional release had been imposed in accordance with Minnesota law, Newcomb’s conditional release would have expired on January 12, 2014. On April 15, 2010, just two days after Newcomb’s original sentence expired, Newcomb was arrested for violating a condition of his release. Newcomb’s conditional release was revoked, and he was sentenced for an additional 150 days.
While Newcomb was able to successfully petition for habeas corpus, what options would have been available to Newcomb if he did not discover the violation of his rights until after he had already served his additional time? Under the current law, it would all depend on in which jurisdiction Newcomb had the fortune or misfortune to have been imprisoned.
In Heck v. Humphrey, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that prisoners must seek a favorable termination in habeas proceedings before challenging the fact or duration of confinement in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. In Spencer v. Kemna, however, the Court walked back this holding, hinting at the possibility that it would not apply where the prisoner has been released from prison. Some circuit courts have, after counting the votes, decided that the Heck “favorable termination rule” does not apply to released prisoners. Other circuit courts have decided to apply the Heck rule according to dicta pointing to the proposition that the favorable termination rule would apply once the prisoner was released even though habeas proceedings would be foreclosed. The Eighth Circuit follows the latter approach.
This article examines Heck, the origins of the current conflict, and the current circuit split in Part II. This article also examines the application of the rule by the Eighth Circuit in Part III. In Part IV, the article looks at habeas corpus law as it pertains to the Heck favorable termination rule. In Part V, this article argues that the Eighth Circuit is on the wrong side of the split and its decisions are due to be overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court. The article concludes the argument in Part VI.