Harris v. Garrett County District Court et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 8/7/2018. (c/m 8/8/2018 heps, Deputy Clerk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
STEVEN WAYNE HARRIS, #41321,
*
Petitioner
*
v.
*
Civil Action No. PJM-18-280
GARRETT COUNTY DISTRICT COURT and *
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF MARYLAND,
*
Respondents
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner Steven Wayne Harris, presently incarcerated at the Garrett County Detention
Center, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF 2. He attacks his September 20, 2017
conviction in the District Court for Garrett County, Maryland for fourth-degree sexual offense.
Id. Respondents have filed an Answer and offered the docket sheet outlining proceedings
relating to Harris’s criminal case. ECF 6. Harris has not replied. ECF 8. After reviewing the
Petition and Answer, 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 set forth below, the Petition shall be denied without prejudice and a
certificate of appealability shall not issue.
On September 20, 2017, Harris pleaded guilty to one count of fourth-degree sexual
offense, and was sentenced to three years of incarceration with 18 months suspended and two
years’ probation. ECF 6-1; ECF 2 at 1-2. He asserts that his conviction and sentence are
unjustified because: (1) he should not have sentenced as a subsequent or repeat offender; (2) the
prosecutor and judge held a “grudge” because of his previous conviction to burn down the
prosecutor’s home and office; (3) DNA testing was not done; and (4) his sentence, which also
includes three years of supervised probation and registration as a sex offender, is
disproportionate for a misdemeanor conviction. ECF 1 at 1. He asks this Court to reduce his
sentence to time served and strike the requirement for probation, on grounds that his
misdemeanor sentence should not have exceeded one year. ECF 1 at 2.
When seeking federal habeas corpus relief 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 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. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann., §§ 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. See Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann., § 12-302(e). If the Court of Special
Appeals denies the application, there is no further review available and the claim is exhausted.
See Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann., § 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, 292 Md. 201, 210-11 (1981).
2
In the form Petition and Respondents’ exhibit, it is apparent that Harris did not seek to
appeal his sentence and has not presented his claims through the State post-conviction process
Thus, it is clear the claims asserted are unexhausted and must be dismissed without prejudice.1
When this 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 claim 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)). Harris fails to meet this standard.
For these reasons, a separate Order shall be entered dismissing the Petition without
prejudice and denying a certificate of appealability.
August 7, 2018
_____________/s/_________________
PETER J. MESSITTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
Because the claims are unexhausted, the Court declines to examine whether they are
constitutionally cognizable. Claims that do not assert a violation of federal or constitutional law
generally provide no basis for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), and thus are
not cognizable in federal court. See generally Wilson v. Corcoran, 131 S. Ct. 13, 14 (2011)
(“Federal courts may not issue writs of habeas corpus to state prisoners whose confinement does
not violate federal law.”); Spencer v. Murray, 18 F.3d 237, 239-40 (4th Cir. 1994) (claim
regarding admissibility of evidence that neither relied upon a constitutional provision, nor
mentioned a constitutional right as infringed, did not state federal claim).
3
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?