Rafa El v. Warden et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 10/21/2014. (c/m 10/21/2014 aos, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
RAAJ RAFA EL

*

v.

* CIVIL ACTION NO. GJH-14-3249

WARDEN, et al.,

*
******
MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 16, 2014, Petitioner Raaj Rafa El, filed the instant 28 U.S.C. ' 2254 habeas
corpus application attacking his convictions for handgun and related offenses entered on October
6, 2014, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. ECF No. 1. After examining these papers, the
Court finds no need for an evidentiary hearing. See Rule 8(a), Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). For the reasons that
follow, the Petition will be denied without prejudice as unexhausted.
The Petitioner is not a model of clarity. Petitioner indicates that he was unlawfully
sentenced on October 6, 2014, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, in Case Number
213253002. He indicates he was forced to stand trial against his will. ECF No. 1. A review of
the Maryland Judiciary Case Search1 reveals that Petitioner had neither filed a direct appeal nor
instituted state post-conviction proceedings.
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.
1

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquirySearch.jis

To exhaust a claim on direct appeal in non-capital cases, it must be raised in an appeal, if
one is permitted, to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and then to the Maryland Court of
Appeals by way of a petition for writ of certiorari. See Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. '12201 and '12-301.
If an appeal of right is not permitted, as in cases where a guilty plea is entered,
exhaustion can be accomplished by filing an application for leave to appeal to the Court of
Special Appeals. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. '12-302(e). If the Court of Special Appeals
denies the application, there is no further review available and the claim is exhausted. Md. Code
Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. '12-202. However, if the application is granted but relief on the merits
of the claim is denied, the petitioner must file a petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of
Appeals. Williams v. State, 428 A.2d 1301, 1305 (1981).
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. Proc. ' 7-101 et seq. If the Court of Special Appeals denies
the application, there is no further review available and the claim is exhausted. See Sherman v.
State, 593 A. 2d 670, 670-71 (1991).

If, however, the application is granted but relief on the

merits of the claim is denied, the petitioner must seek certiorari to the Court of Appeals.
Grayson v. State, 728 A.2d 1280, 1285 (1999).

See

Petitioner has not yet begun, much less

completed, appellate or post-conviction review and his petition here shall be dismissed without
prejudice as unexhausted, to allow him to refile this case after completion of state remedies.
Petitioner 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

2

applications for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court.2 Should he wish to refile this petition
once he has exhausted his available state court remedies, Petitioner 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 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 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)
2

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 postconviction 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.

3

(quoting Slack v. Daniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). The court will not issue a certificate of
appealability because petitioner has not made the requisite showing.
A separate order follows.

_____10/21/14___________
Date

_____________/s/_________________
George J. Hazel
United States District Judge

4