Rice v. Acuff et al
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 10/18/2019. (cm 10/18/2019 - jf3s, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ALTEERICE,
*
Petitioner
*
v
*
lAMA ACUFF, and
MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL,
*
Respondents
Civil Action No. PWG-19-1172
*
***
MEMORANDUM
On April 22, 2019, Altee Rice filed the instant 28 U.S.C. ~ 2254 habeas corpus petition
challenging the Maryland Division of Corrections' computation of his 2017 sentence for illegal
possession of a firearm, carrying a handgun, reckless endangerment, possession of a controlled
dangerous substance, and manufacturing, distribution, possession, or possession with intent to
distribute entered by the Circuit Court for Prince George's
County, Maryland.
ECF 1.
Respondents filed an Answer indicating, among other things, that the Petition must be dismissed
for failure to exhaust state court remedies. ECF 4. Rice did not reply. For the reasons to follow,
the Petition will be denied and dismissed without prejudice.
On September 12, 2017, Petitioner received the following sentences in the Circuit Court
for Prince George's County in Case No. CT 150920X:
Count Four, illegal possession of a regulated firearm: five year term of confinement, with
all but four years suspended;
Count Five, carrying a handgun: three year term of confinement to be served concurrent to
Count Four;
Count Six, reckless endangerment: five year term of confinement with all but four years
suspended to run concurrent to Count Five;
Count Seven, possession of a controlled dangerous
confinement to run concurrent to Count Six;
substance:
four year term of
Count Eight, manufacturing, distribution, possession, or possession with intent to
distribute: eight year term of confinement, with all but five years suspended, to run
concurrent to Count Six
.
ECF 4-1, p. 2.
The court credited Petitioner one year, 274 days for time served and directed that all
sentences were to commence on December 15, 2015. Id. The commitment record dated September
25,2017 mistakenly indicated, "The total time to be served is: 4 years to begin on 15-Dec-2015."
Id. Petitioner's sentences resulted in a maximum expiration date of December 15,2020.
ECF 4-
2; see also Md. Code Ann., Corr. Servs. 9 3-701 (2)(i) (defining term of confinement); Md. Code
Reg. 12.02.06.0 I.B.12 (defining maximum expiration date).
On November 15,2017, the Circuit Court for Prince George's County issued an amended
commitment order correcting the error in the September 25, 2017 Commitment Order to reflect
that Petitioner's time to be served was five years. ECF 4-3, p. 3; ECF 4-1, p. 2 (Count Eight sentence to eight years with all but five years suspended).
The amended commitment order did
not change Petitioner's maximum expiration date. ECF 4-4, p. 2.
Assuming Rice has presented a federal question here, his Petition is subject to the
exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. 92254(b).
Under
S
2254, before seeking federal habeas
corpus relief, Rice must exhaust each claim presented by pursuing remedies available in state court.
See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 521 (1982). Each claim must be fairly presented to the state
courts; this means presenting both the operative facts and controlling legal principles. See Baker
v. Corcoran, 220 F.3d 276, 289 (4th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). Exhaustion includes appellate
review in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and where appropriate in the Maryland Court of
Appeals. See Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 134-35 (1987). This exhaustion requirement
2
affords the state courts 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.
See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,491 (1973).
Rice may challenge the calculation
of his term of confinement
by pursuing both
administrative and judicial remedies. He may file a grievance with the Inmate Grievance Office
("IGO"). See generally Adamson v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 753 A.2d 501 (Md. 2000); Md. Code
Ann., Corr. Servs.
S
10-206(a). If the grievance is not found wholly lacking in merit on its face,
it is referred to the Office of Administrative
administrative law judge. Id. at
S
10-207(c).
Hearings ("OAH") for a hearing before an
An order of the OAH finding that an inmate's
complaint is lacking in merit constitutes the final decision of the Secretary of Public Safety and
Correctional Services ("Secretary") for purposes of judicial review. Id at
S
10-209(b)(1 )(ii). If
the OAH finds that the grievance is meritorious, an order is forwarded to the Secretary.
Secretary may affirm, reverse, or modify the order of the OAR
Id. at
The
S 10-209(c).
An appeal of the Secretary's decision lies with the "circuit court of the county in which the
complainant is confined."
Id. at
S
10-21 O(b)(2). Petitioner may thereafter seek review in the
Maryland Court of Special Appeals by application for leave to appeal, id. at
S
10-21O(c)(2), and,
if the Maryland Court of Special Appeals grants the application for leave to appeal but denies relief
on the merits, he may then seek review in the Maryland Court of Appeals by petition for writ of
certiorari. See Williams v. State, 438 A.2d 1301 (Md. 1981); Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc.
S
12-202.
If, however, Rice "alleges entitlement to immediate release and makes a colorable claim
that he or she has served the entire sentence less any mandatory [diminution] credits," he may seek
relief directly from Maryland courts by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Maryland
3
House of Correction v. Fields, 703 A.2d 167, 175 (Md. 1997), abrogated on other grounds by
Moats v. Scott, 751 A.2d 462 (Md. 2000). He may appeal a circuit court's decision denying habeas
corpus relief to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, and may thereafter seek certiorari in the
Maryland Court of Appeals. See generally Stouffer v. Pearson, 887 A.2d 623 (Md. 2005); Jones
v. Filbert, 843 A.2d 908 (Md. App. 2004); Stouffer v. Staton, 833 A.2d 33 (Md. 2003).
Rice states that he has not filed any proceeding in state court regarding the claims raised in
this Petition. ECF No.1, at 6-8. There is no indication that Rice has subsequently made any effort
to fully exhaust his administrative or state remedies.
This Court may not entertain the issues
presented in the Petition while the Maryland courts have not had the opportunity to fully review
the claims raised. Having found the claims unexhausted, the Court need not address Respondents'
additional arguments regarding the computation of Rice's sentence.
Accordingly, the habeas corpus relief requested shall be denied without prejudice and
dismissed as unexhausted. 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 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 (2000ยป.
Rice fails to meet this standard and a
Certificate of Appealability shall not issue.
A separate Order follows.
Paul W. Grimm
United States District Judge
4
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?