Tonkins v. Ray
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER that the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Docket # 1) be and is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and it is further ORDERED that petitioner's requests to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket ##2, 10) be and are DENIED AS MO OT; and it is further ORDERED that petitioner's Motion/Request for Order to Show Cause (Docket # 7) be and is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Amend/Correct Caselaw (Docket # 9) be and is GRANTED. To appeal, pe titioner must file a written notice of appeal with the Clerk's Office within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. A written notice of appeal is a short statement stating a desire to appeal this Order and noting the date of the Order petit ioner wants to appeal. Petitioner need not explain the grounds for appeal until so directed by the court. Petitioner must also request a certificate of appealability from a circuit justice or judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). For the reasons stated above, this Court expressly declines to issue such a certificate. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 3/31/10. copy mailed; yes(tfitz, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
-_
Cedrick Rodriguez Tonkins,
Petitioner,
)
)
L
^AR 3 I
A. i"
vTracy S. Ray,
)
)
l:09cvl221(LO/TCB)
Respondent.
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Cedrick Rodriguez Tonkins, a Virginia inmate proceeding eto se, has filed a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the computation of his sentence
time.1 By Order dated December 14, 2009, petitioner was directed to show cause why his
petition should not be barred from federal habeas review due to the Supreme Court of Virginia's finding of procedural default. On January 5 and January 8, 2010, petitioner filed several documents, including a Motion/Request for Order to Show Cause and a Motion to
Amend/Correct Caselaw, both of which appear to be petitioner's attempts to comply with the
December 14 Order, and as such they will be granted.
For the reasons discussed below,
however, the petition will be dismissed as procedurally defaulted from review.
Petitioner argues that the Virginia Department of Corrections ("VDOC") failed to properly calculate his sentence; he believes that his total sentence should be reflected as 4 years,
22 months, instead of 4 years, 29 months. He also appears to argue that the trial court did not
properly adjust his sentence based on jail time credits. Petitioner states that he filed a habeas
petition raising this claim in the Circuit Court for Prince William County on January 4, 2009,
which this Court dismissed as barred from review as the result of petitioner's procedural default'
See Tonkins v. Johnson. 1:07cvl292 (LO/IDD).
Petitioner previously filed a habeas petition challenging the constitutionality of his conviction,
which was denied as barred by Virginia's one year statute of limitations, § 8.01-654(A)(2). Tonkins v. Commonwealth, Case No. CL04087650-00 (Va. Cir. Ct. April 14, 2009). Petitioner
appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which refiised the appeal, stating that
the petition for appeal failed to assign error as required by Rule 5:17(c). Tonkins v.
Commonwealth. R. No. 091026 (Va. Oct. 15,2009).
As explained in the December 14, 2009 Order, petitioner's claim is barred from federal
review as a result of the Supreme Court of Virginia's finding of procedural default. A state
court's finding of procedural default is entitled to a presumption of correctness, Clanton v.
Muncv., 845 F.2d 1238, 1241 (4th Cir. 1988) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)), provided two foundations requirements are met, Harris v. Reed. 489 U.S. 255, 262-63 (1989). First, the state
court must explicitly rely on the procedural ground to deny petitioner relief. Id Second, the
state procedural rule furnished to default petitioner's claim must be an independent and adequate
state ground for denying relief. Id at 260; Ford v. Georgia. 498 U.S. 411, 423-24 (1991). When
these two requirements have been met, federal courts may not review the barred claims absent a
showing of cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice, such as actual
innocence. Harris. 489 U.S. at 260.
Here, the Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed the petition, finding that the appeal was
not perfected in the manner provided by law because the petition for appeal did not contain
sufficient assignments of error that comply with the requirements of Rule 5:17(c).2 The United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has recognized that a petitioner's failure to comply
with the requirements of Va. Sup. Ct. R. 5:17(c) constitutes an independent and adequate state
^^"T^ * petition for appeaI does not co-in -- r L £ petition for appeaI does
"Srivtl specific errors a P?itiOn f°r below upon which the appellant intends to the petition r at ln in the rulings appeal t0 the SuPreme Court of Virginia, rely » The shall hst the
p
law ground that precludes federal habeas review of any non-compliant claim. See Hedrick v. Jrue, 443 F.3d 342, 360 (4th Cir. 2006); Mueller v. Anpelone. 181 F.3d 557, 584 (4th Cir. 1999); Yeatts v. Angelone, 166 F.3d 255, 264 (4th Cir. 1999). Thus, petitioner's present claim
was procedurally defaulted in the state forum and barred is from federal review.
Petitioner was provided the opportunity to show cause why his claim should not be
dismissed as procedurally defaulted. See Yeatts v. Angelone. 166 F.3d 255, 261-62 (4th Cir.
1999) (finding a federal habeas court's sua sponte dismissal of procedurally defaulted claims
permissible where petitioner is provided notice and an opportunity to argue against dismissal). Federal courts may not review barred claims absent a showing of cause and prejudice or a
fundamental miscarriage of justice, such as actual innocence. Harris v. Reed. 489 U.S. 255, 260
(1989). The existence of cause ordinarily turns upon a showing of (1) a denial of effective assistance of counsel, (2) a factor external to the defense which impeded compliance with the
state procedural rule, or (3) the novelty of the claim. See Coleman. 501 U.S. at 753-54; Clpzza
vjvlurray., 913 F.2d 1092, 1104 (4th Cir. 1990); Clanton v. Muncv. 845 F.2d 1238, 1241-42 (4th Cir. 1988). Importantly, a court need not consider the issue of prejudice in the absence of cause. See Kornahrens v. Evatt, 66 F.3d 1350,1359 (4th Cir. 1995), cert, denied. 517 U.S. 1171 (1996). In his response, petitioner argues that the Supreme Court of Virginia never gave advance
notice to petitioner to allow him to correct the deficiency before rendering a decision. In support of his argument, petitioner cites Fed. R. Civ. P 77(d) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 49(c). As these are
federal rules of procedure, they do not apply to the Virginia courts, and thus this argument fails.
Petitioner also argues that pro se litigants should be held to a less strict standard than parties
represented by counsel. While pro se litigants are held to a less strict standard, Virginia courts
have held that their filings must, "however inartfully or informally drafted, state a case for
3
substantive relief." Strickland v. Dunn. 244 S.E.2d 764, 767, 219 Va. 76, 80 (1978). As
petitioner apparently did not assign error in his petition for appeal, he did not state a case for substantive relief. Finally, petitioner cites the standard for dismissal of an appeal for failure to state a claim, which is inapplicable here. As a result, the instant petition will be dismissed as
procedurally barred from federal review. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Docket # 1) be and is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and it is further
ORDERED that petitioner's requests to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket ##2, 10) be
and are DENIED AS MOOT; and it is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion/Request for Order to Show Cause (Docket # 7) be
and is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Amend/Correct Caselaw (Docket # 9) be and is
GRANTED.
To appeal, petitioner must file a written notice of appeal with the Clerk's Office within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. A written notice of appeal is a short statement stating a desire to appeal this Order and noting the date of the Order petitioner wants to appeal. Petitioner
need not explain the grounds for appeal until so directed by the court. Petitioner must also
request a certificate of appealability from a circuit justice or judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). For the reasons stated above, this Court expressly declines to issue such a
certificate.
The Clerk is directed to send of copy of this Order to petitioner and to close this civil
case.
Entered this
> '
day nf
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?