Edmonds v. Morgan et al
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 07/03/2013. (bas, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
BRAD EDMONDS #370076
Petitioner
v.
*
*
J. PHILIP MORGAN, et al.,
Respondents
Civil Action No. RWT-12-2049
*
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On September 17, 2012, the Court directed Respondents to answer Brad Edmonds’s
(“Edmonds”) Petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 10). Respondents have filed an Answer
claiming that the Petition should be dismissed in its entirety because the Petition contains
unexhausted claims.1 (ECF No. 11). Edmonds has filed a “Reply Response” and a “Reply.” (ECF
Nos. 13 & 14).
Factual & Procedural History
Edmonds was charged in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County with first-degree
burglary, possession/use of burglary tools, theft, breaking and entering a motor vehicle, and rogue/
vagabond. (ECF No. 11, Exs. 1 & 2). On March 22, 2011, a jury found him guilty of the
aforementioned counts. (Id.). On July 5, 2011, Judge Ronald B. Rubin sentenced Edmonds to a
total of 33 years in prison. Edmonds filed a timely appeal via counsel wherein he raised the
following claims:
1.
Did the trial court err by failing to merge Edmonds’s convictions?
2.
Was the evidence legally sufficient to support Edmonds’s conviction for possession
burglary tools?
of
1
Edmonds has filed a Motion for Default Judgment, asserting that Respondents have otherwise
failed to defend the action. (ECF No. 12). The Motion shall be denied, as Respondents have fled a timely
Answer.
Id., Ex. 2 at 2. It also appears that Edmonds filed a self-represented appeal raising several issues,
including whether the police improperly placed a GPS device on his vehicle and whether he received
effective assistance of counsel due to his defense attorney’s collusion with the trial court and
prosecutor regarding the “silent record” of the GPS issue. (ECF No. 11, Ex. 4). Respondents assert
that the Court of Special Appeals did not accept Edmonds’s filing. Respondents state that the appeal
remains pending before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.2
Analysis
The Court has generously construed the self-represented Petition to allege that Edmonds’s
constitutional rights were violated under the Fourth and Sixth Amendments. Edmonds seemingly
claims that law enforcement placed a GPS unit on his vehicle without a search warrant and used the
unit to conduct surveillance over the course of approximately one week, resulting in a search,
seizure, and his arrest. He contends that any evidence “obtained as a result of subsequent searches
must therefore be suppressed under the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine’” and his conviction
must be vacated
(ECF No. 5).
He further claims that defense counsel engaged in “collusion”
during the course of his suppression hearing. (Id.).
Respondents argue that the Petition should be dismissed because the grounds raised have not
been exhausted as Edmonds’s appeal remains pending before the Court of Special Appeals of
Maryland and no post-conviction proceedings have been initiated. In his Replies, Edmonds argues
that exhaustion should be waived because he has already filed state habeas corpus petitions which
have been denied.
2
The Clerk’s Office for the Court of Special Appeals confirms that the appeal remains pending
as of June 19, 2013.
2
When filing a federal habeas corpus application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a petitioner must
show that all of his claims have been presented to the state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c);
see also Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491 (1973). This exhaustion requirement is satisfied by
seeking review of the claim in the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider it. For a person
convicted of a criminal offense in Maryland this may be accomplished either on direct appeal or in
post-conviction proceedings. To exhaust a claim through post-conviction proceedings, it must be
raised in a petition filed in the Circuit Court and in an application for leave to appeal to the Court of
Special Appeals. See Md. Code Ann., Crim. Pro. Art. §§ 7-101 et seq. (2001). If the Court of
Special Appeals denies the application, there is no further review available and the claim is
exhausted. If, however, the application is granted but relief on the merits of the claim is denied, the
petitioner must seek certiorari in the Court of Appeals. See Stachowski v. State, 6 A.3d 907 (2010);
Williams v. State, 438 A.2d. 1301 (1981).
Where a federal habeas petition presents unexhausted claims and the unexhausted claims
would not be entertained by the state court if presented there, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit has determined Athe claim to be exhausted and denied on an adequate and
independent state-law ground.@ George v. Angelone, 100 F.3d 353, 364-65 n. 14 (4th Cir. 1996).
Except in limited circumstances, see Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 276-79 (2005) (addressing stay
of Amixed@ habeas petition), where state court review remains available, a federal habeas petition
raising exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed in its entirety unless the state, through
counsel, expressly waives the exhaustion requirement. In this case, Respondents expressly decline
to waive the exhaustion requirement. ECF No. 11.
Edmonds has not exhausted his state court remedies as to his claims. His appeal remains
3
pending and he has not initiated post-conviction review. Therefore, his Petition shall be
dismissed without prejudice as unexhausted, to allow him to re-file this case after completion
of state remedies.
Edmonds is advised that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 amended
28 U.S.C. § 2244 to impose a one-year filing deadline on state prisoners filing applications for a writ
of habeas corpus in federal court.3 Should he wish to re-file this Petition once he has exhausted his
available state court remedies, Edmonds should take care not to miss this deadline.
A habeas petitioner has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his
motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (1). A certificate of appealability (“COA”) may issue “only if the
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. at § 2253 (c)(2).
When a district court dismisses a habeas petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate
3
This section provides:
(1)
A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a
writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment
of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of(A)
the date on which the judgment became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for
seeking such review;
(B)
the date on which the impediment to filing an
application created by State action in violation of the
constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the
applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
(C)
the date on which the constitutional right asserted
was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has
been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D)
the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or
claims presented could have been discovered through the
exercise of due diligence.
(2)
the time during which a properly filed application for State
post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent
judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of
limitation under this subsection.
4
of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid clam of the denial of a constitutional right’
and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its
procedural ruling.’” Rouse v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. Daniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). The Court declines to issue a COA because Owens has not made the
requisite showing. A separate order follows.
Date: July 3, 2013
/s/
ROGER W. TITUS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?