Sanford v. Clarke

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 02/06/2019. (c/s to petitioner)(dvanm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

Arthur Lee Sanford,
Petitioner,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

V.
Harold W.Clarke,
Respondent.

l:18cv303(LMB/TCB)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Arthur Lee Sanford, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro sq, has filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the constitutionality of his conviction

for second degree murder in the Circuit Court for the City ofNewport News. Before the Court is
respondent's Motion to Dismiss the petition [Dkt. No. 7], to which petitioner has filed a
response. [Dkt. No. 12] For the following reasons, the Motion to Dismiss will be granted.
I. Background

Following ajury trial, Sanford was convicted on January 11,2013,and received a
sentence offorty(40) years incarceration. Case No. CRl 1000078-00. In the Final Order he

issued in Sanford's state habeas corpus petition, the trial judge described the facts underlying the
conviction as follow:^

On December 3, 2003,Petitioner was living in an apartment with
his girlfriend. Towanna Brinkley.[FN] Dawn Uzzle, who lived in
an adjacent apartment,saw and heard Petitioner and Brinkley
return home during the afternoon or early evening hours. At
approximately 5:30 p.m., Uzzle heard a series ofloud thumps and
the muffled screaming of a woman. At the same time, another
^Because a federal court on habeas review ofa state conviction must defer to findings offact
made by state trial and appellate courts, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), it is appropriate to look to the state
court's recitation ofthe salient facts. The Supreme Court of Virginia refused further review ofthe
Final Order without comment; therefore, the trial court's reasoning is imputed to it. S^ Ylst v.
Nunnemaker. 501 U.S. 797,803(1991).