Wilkins v. McDonough

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 04/04/2014. (c/m 4/7/2014)(ads, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

RALPH EDWARD WILKINS
Petitioner,
v.

*
*

MARY LOU MCDONOUGH, DIRECTOR,
Respondent.

CIVIL ACTION NO. RWT-14-956

*
*****

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On March 27, 2014, this Court received a Petition for habeas corpus relief from Ralph
Edward Wilkins (AWilkins@), a prisoner confined at the Prince George’s County Detention Center in
Upper Marlboro, Maryland. Wilkins claims that he was convicted of first degree murder in 1971
and sentenced to a natural life term in the Maryland Division of Correction. He contends that on
August 27, 2013, his conviction was overturned and he recently entered a guilty plea to first-degree
murder and was sentenced to life with all but 57 years and 6 months suspended. ECF No. 1.
Wilkins seemingly claims that his new sentence violates the Equal Protection Clause in that
the sentencing judge did not award him the credit required under Maryland law. He avers that he is
not seeking a suspended sentence or parole reconsideration, but is requesting that Maryland statutes
be properly applied to “eliminate double serving of time, eliminating double jeopardy and bringing
life sentences in line with Maryland law.” ECF No. 1. Wilkins seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and requests the appointment of counsel. ECF Nos. 2, 3. The prepayment of the habeas fee
shall be waived, but his Petition shall be summarily dismissed.1

1

In light of the decision entered by the Court, Wilkins’ “Petition Seeking Assignment of Legal Assistance”
(ECF No. 3) shall be denied as moot.

The Maryland Judiciary Case Search website confirms that on August 27, 2013, the Circuit
Court for Prince George’s County struck down the guilty finding on Wilkins’ first-degree murder
conviction. The docket shows that on March 13, 2014, he entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to
life, with all but 57 years and 6 months suspended. He was given 24 years and 194 days credit and
ordered to be returned to the Maryland Division of Correction. See State v. Wilkins, Criminal No.
CT11187 (Circuit Court for Prince George’s County). www.casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry.
Before a petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief, he must exhaust each claim presented
to the federal court by first pursuing remedies available in the state court. See Leonard v. Hammond,
806 F.2d 838, 840 (4th Cir. 1986). This exhaustion requirement is satisfied by seeking review of the
claim in the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider the claim. See O'Sullivan v. Boerckel,
526 U. S. 838, 842 (1999); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c). In Maryland, this may be accomplished by
raising certain claims on direct appeal and also by way of post-conviction proceedings. See
Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 911 (4th Cir. 1997); Spencer v. Murray, 18 F.3d 237, 239 (4th Cir.
1994). The exhaustion requirement demands that the petitioner “do more than scatter some
makeshift needles in the haystack of the state court record. The ground relied upon must be
presented face-up and squarely; the federal question must be plainly defined. Oblique references
which hint that a theory may be lurking in the woodwork will not turn the trick.” Mallory v. Smith,
27 F.3d 991, 994-95 (4th Cir. 2001), (quoting Martens v. Shannon, 836 F.2d 715, 717 (1st Cir.
1988)). This exhaustion requirement is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to federal habeas corpus
relief but rather a matter of comity. See Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 134-35 (1987). The state
courts are to be afforded the first opportunity to review federal constitutional challenges to state
convictions in order to preserve the role of the state courts in protecting federally guaranteed rights.

2

See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 490 (1973). The United States Supreme Court has
interpreted § 2254(c) to require a state prisoner to present his claims to the state's highest court, even
if review is discretionary, when such review is part of the ordinary appellate review procedure. See
O'Sullivan 526 U.S. at 845. This generally requires appealing state court decisions all the way to the
state=s highest court. Id. at 847.
Wilkins pled guilty and was sentenced on March 13, 2014. Less than three weeks later he
filed this action. Assuming, arguendo, that his application states a federal claim under § 2254,
Wilkins’ Petition is plainly not exhausted. He has not availed himself of the remedies available to
him in the Maryland courts. The merits of the habeas petition shall not be considered by this Court.
Accordingly, a separate Order shall be entered dismissing this action without prejudice.

Dated: April 4, 2014

/s/
ROGER W. TITUS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3