THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY
takosull0,
Petitioner,
v.
Larkin_RBLX, in his official capacity as a law
enforcement officer in the Ridgeway State Police,
pursuant to 7 R. Stat. § 133.002.
Respondent.
Hon.
Case No.: RSC-CV-8446
PETITIONER'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
HABEAS CORPUS AND OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S BRIEF
Petitioner takosull0, proceeding pro se, respectfully submits this Reply in Support of his
Petition for Habeas Corpus and in Opposition to Respondent's Brief in Opposition ("Resp. Br.").
1. Respondent's Opposition does not dispute the single fact that controls this case:
Petitioner was imprisoned for ten (10) minutes for an offense that carries a statutory maximum
of five (5) minutes. Respondent instead spends its entire brief litigating issues Petitioner never
raised — the lawfulness of the arrest and Petitioner's guilt or innocence of Criminal Speeding.
Neither issue is presented by this Petition, and neither issue answers the question actually before
the Court: whether a term of imprisonment double the statutory maximum is lawful.
PAGE 1
I. THE ZACHCASISBEAST TEST DOES NOT GOVERN A CLAIM OF
EXCESS PUNISHMENT
2. Respondent is correct that In re ZachCasisbeast asks (a) whether the arrest was
lawful, and (b) whether the petitioner was actually innocent of the charge. Petitioner does not
dispute either prong. Petitioner does not contest the arrest for Criminal Speeding, and does not
claim or deny innocence of the underlying offense.
3. That is because ZachCasisbeast addresses a different question than the one raised
here. That test governs whether a petitioner may use habeas corpus to attack the validity of an
arrest or the sufficiency of the charge. It says nothing about, and does not purport to limit, a
petitioner's right to challenge a term of confinement that exceeds what the legislature has
authorized for the offense. A lawful arrest for a lawful charge does not immunize the State from
imposing an unlawful sentence.
4. Respondent's own brief concedes the arrest was lawful and does not dispute that RVC
§ 1.03 caps imprisonment for Criminal Speeding at five minutes. Applying ZachCasisbeast to
bar this claim would mean that so long as an arrest is valid, the State could detain a person for
any length of time; five (5) hours, one day, ten (10) days; all with no habeas remedy available.
That result cannot be correct, and nothing in ZachCasisbeast compels it. Habeas corpus is used
to challenge unlawful detention. Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. 163 (1873).
PAGE 2
II. EXCESS DETENTION BEYOND A STATUTORY MAXIMUM IS A CLASSIC
HABEAS CLAIM, NOT A MATTER FOR "ORDINARY CIVIL PROCEEDINGS"
5. Respondent cites IamOnCane v. RokuTitanite for the proposition that any "deprivation
of rights" must be pursued through ordinary civil proceedings, and argues Petitioner's claim is
barred because he does not challenge the legality of the arrest itself.
6. That reading proves too much. Habeas corpus exists precisely to test the lawfulness of
a person's custody, not merely the lawfulness of the initial arrest. A detention that begins
lawfully can become unlawful the moment it exceeds the limit the law allows. Petitioner was in
the physical custody of the State for twice the maximum period authorized by statute. That is,
by definition, unlawful custody, and unlawful custody is the core subject matter of a habeas
petition.
7. IamOnCane does not hold otherwise. Respondent quotes the case for the general
proposition that rights deprivations belong in civil court, but Respondent has not shown that
IamOnCane involved, or intended to reach, a claim of over-detention beyond a statutory cap.
Extending that language to bar this claim reads far more into the case than Respondent has
demonstrated it holds.
III. RESPONDENT DOES NOT DISPUTE THE OPERATIVE FACTS
8. Respondent's own Statement of Facts admits Petitioner was detained for ten minutes.
Respondent does not dispute that RVC § 1.03 sets a five-minute maximum for Criminal
Speeding. Respondent offers no argument – none – for why a ten-minute detention on a
five-minute-maximum offense is lawful. The entirety of Respondent's brief is devoted to issues
Petitioner does not dispute, while the one issue Petitioner does raise goes unanswered.
PAGE 3
CONCLUSION
9. The arrest's validity and Petitioner's guilt are not in dispute and are not the basis of
this Petition. What is in dispute is a term of imprisonment that, on Respondent's own admitted
facts, exceeded the statutory maximum by a factor of two. Respondent has offered no legal or
factual basis to justify that excess detention.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court deny Respondent's
request for dismissal and grant the relief requested in the Petition.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ takosull0
Petitioner Pro Se
PAGE 4
