Walker v. Miller
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 12/6/11. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
STANLEY N. WALKER,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 3:llcv318-HEH
NORA MILLER,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Dismissing the § 2254 Petition)
Stanley N. Walker, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se and informa
pauperis, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§
2254 Petition") challenging his conviction in the Circuit Court for the County of
Mecklenburg, Virginia ("Circuit Court"). Walker raises the following four claims for
relief:
Claim 1
The Commonwealth's Attorney that prosecuted his case in
the Circuit Court represented him on an earlier case, thus
creating a conflict of interest.
Claim 2
Walker received ineffective assistance of counsel when
counsel knew about this conflict and did not object to the
Commonwealth's Attorney using Walker's juvenile record.
Claim 3
The Commonwealth's Attorney failed to disclose exculpatory
evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963).1
Claim 4
The Commonwealth's Attorneywho prosecuted Walkerwas
his counsel during a Juvenile Court matter in 1996.
Brady held that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused
upon request violates due process where the evidence is material eitherto guilt or to punishment,
irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Brady, 373 U.S. at 87.
(§ 2254 Pet. 6-11.) Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dk. No. 10) on the ground
that Walker's claims are not exhausted. Respondent has also filed the appropriate
Roseboro notice (Dk. No. 12).2 Walker has not responded. This matter isripe for
disposition.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Walker was convicted in the Circuit Court for "robbery ofan occupied dwelling."3
(§ 2254 Pet. 2.) The Circuit Court sentenced Walker to an eight-year term of
imprisonment. {Id.) On June 3, 2010, the Circuit Court entered the final judgment in
Walker's criminal case. (Br. Supp. Mot. Dismiss 1.) Walker's direct appeal to the Court
of Appeals of Virginia was denied on December 20,2010. {Id. 3.) Walker did not appeal
to the Supreme Court of Virginia nor did he file any petition for writ of habeas corpus in
either the Circuit Court or the Supreme Court of Virginia. {Id.) On May 5,2011, Walker
filed his § 2254 Petition raising four grounds for relief.4
II. ANALYSIS
Before a state prisoner can bring a § 2254 Petition in federal district court, the
prisoner must first have "exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State." 28
U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). State exhaustion "'is rooted in considerations of federal-state
comity,'" and in the congressional determination via federal habeas laws "that exhaustion
2Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975).
Defendant was apparently convicted of statutoryburglarywith intent to commit robbery
in violation of VA Code § 18.2-90.
4 The Court deems the § 2254 Petition filed on the date Walker swears he placed the
petition in the prison mailing system. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
2
of adequate state remedies will 'best serve the policies of federalism.'" Slavekv. Hinkle,
359 F. Supp. 2d 473,479 (E.D. Va. 2005) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,
491-92 & n.10 (1973)). The purpose of exhaustion is "to give the State an initial
opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its prisoners' federal rights."
Picardv. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Exhaustion has two aspects. First, a petitioner must utilize "all available state remedies
before he can apply for federal habeas relief." Breard v. Pruett, 134 F.3d 615, 619 (4th
Cir. 1998) (citing Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 910-11 (4th Cir. 1997)). As to
whether a petitioner has used all available state remedies, the statute notes that a habeas
petitioner "shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of
the State ... if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available
procedure, the question presented." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c).
The second aspect of exhaustion requires a petitioner to have offered the state's
courts an adequate opportunity to address the constitutional claims advanced on federal
habeas. "To provide the State with the necessary 'opportunity,' the prisoner must 'fairly
present' his claim in each appropriate state court (including a state supreme court with
powers of discretionary review), thereby alerting that court to the federal nature of the
claim." Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (quoting Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S.
364,365-66(1995)).
Here, Walker has not presented any of his claims for federal habeas relief to the
Supreme Court of Virginia. Walker admits that he did not raise Claims 1, 3, or 4 on
direct appeal. (§ 2254 Pet. 6, 9,12.) Therefore, they are unexhausted. Walker has also
failed to file a habeas petition in the Circuit Court or the Supreme Court of Virginia,
which is the only way he could have presented Claim 2 in state court. Thus, the
Commonwealth ofVirginia has not been given "an initial opportunity to pass upon and
correct alleged violations of its prisoners' federal rights." Picard, 404 U.S. at 275
(internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, Walker has not satisfied the first aspect
of exhaustion because he can still file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the state
courts.5 Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(A)(2). Thus, Walker's claims will be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-file after he has exhausted his state court remedies.6
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Walker's § 2254 Petition (Dk. No. 1) will be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Dk. No. 10)
will be GRANTED. The action will be DISMISSED.
An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a
judge issues a certificate of appealability ("COA"). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A COA
This section provides, in pertinent part: "A habeas corpus petition attacking a criminal
conviction or sentence ... shall be filed withintwo years from the date of final judgment in the
trial court orwithinone year from either final disposition ofthe direct appeal in state court orthe
time for filing such appeal has expired, whichever is later." Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(A)(2).
Final judgment was entered on June 3, 2010 and Walker's direct appeal concluded on December
20, 2010. Of course, Walker must act promptly in pursuing a state petition for a writ of
habeas corpus.
There appears to be time for Walkerto file a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus
afterthe conclusion of his statecourt proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The Court
admonishes Walker that any petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court should be
filed promptly at the conclusion of his state court collateral proceedings.
4
will not issue unless a prisoner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This requirement is satisfied only when
"reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition
should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were
'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473,484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). No law or
evidence suggests that Walker is entitled to further consideration in this matter. A
certificate of appealability will therefore be DENIED.
An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
At
Is!
HENRY E.HUDSON
Date5fcnwgr2.olt
Richmond, Virginia
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?