Holmes v. Wright
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 10/4/13. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
JOHN ANTHONY HOLMES,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 3:12CV675-HEH
v.
B. WRIGHT,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss)
John Anthony Holmes, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and informa
pauperis, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254
Petition") challenging his 2009 convictions in the Circuit Court of the City of Suffolk,
Virginia ("Circuit Court") for three counts of child neglect and five counts of aggravated
sexual battery.
Claim One
Holmes received ineffective assistance from counsel because
counsel failed to move to dismiss the Indictments for
aggravated sexual battery on the grounds that they were not
returned "a true bill" and the foreman of the grandjury failed
to sign the Indictments. (Br. Supp. § 2254 Pet. (ECF No. 2)
3.)1
Claim Two
Holmes received ineffective assistance from counsel because
counsel failed to move to dismiss the Indictments on the
grounds that they violated the Double Jeopardy Clause2 and
"chargedthe same exact crime 18.2-67.3 during the same
exact time frame." (Id at 5 (punctuation corrected).)
The Court has corrected the capitalization in the quotations to Holmes's submissions.
"Noperson shall... be subject for the same offense to be twice put injeopardy of life or
limb ...." U.S. Const, amend. V.
Claim Three
Holmes received ineffective assistance when counsel failed to
move for the trial judge to recuse himself. (Id. at 6.)
Claim Four
Holmes received ineffective assistance from counsel because
counsel failed to move to dismiss the Indictments charging
child abuse on the grounds that they were not returned "a true
bill" and the foreman of the grand jury failed to sign the
Indictments. (Id. at 7.)
Claim Five
Holmes received ineffective assistance when counsel failed to
move to dismiss the three Indictments charging felony child
neglect because Holmes was arraigned on three
misdemeanors and thus had no notice such crimes were
felonies. (Id. at 8.)
Claim Six
Holmes received ineffective assistance on appeal because
appellate counsel only raised two frivolous issues. (Id. at 10.)
Claim Seven
Counsel failed to assert on appeal that "the petitioner has
been convicted on statute 18.2-371(1)(A) Classl
Misdemeanor, then sentenced on another statute 18.2-371.1
Class 4 felony." (Mat 11.)
Respondent moves to dismiss the § 2254 Petition on the grounds that Holmes's
claims lack merit.3 Respondent provided Holmes with appropriate Roseboro notice.4
(ECF No. 15.) Holmes has not responded. The matter is ripe for disposition.
I.
THE APPLICABLE CONSTRAINTS UPON HABEAS REVIEW
In order to obtain federal habeas relief, at a minimum, a petitioner must
demonstrate that he or she is "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The Antiterrorism and Effective
Respondentconcedes that Holmes has properly exhausted his state court remedies with
respect to each of his claims. (Br. Supp. Mot. Dismiss 2.)
4See Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 1975).
Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") of 1996 further circumscribed this Court's authority to
grant relief by way of a writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, "[sjtate court factual
determinations are presumed to be correct and may be rebutted only by clear and
convincing evidence." Gray v. Branker, 529 F.3d 220,228 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing 28
U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)). Additionally, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), a federal court may not
grant a writ of habeas corpus based on any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in
state court unless the adjudicated claim:
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination
of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The Supreme Court emphasizes that the question "is not whether a
federal court believes the state court's determination was incorrect but whether that
determination was unreasonable—a substantially higher threshold." Schriro v.
Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 473 (2007) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 410
(2000)).5
II.
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a convicted defendant must first
show that counsel's representation was deficient, and, second, that the deficient
performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687
(1984). To satisfy the deficient performance prong of Strickland, a convicted defendant
must overcome the "'strong presumption' that counsel's strategy and tactics fall 'within
In light of the foregoing statutory structure, the Supreme Court of Virginia's resolution of
Holmes's claims figures prominently in this Court's opinion.
3
the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.'" Burch v. Corcoran, 273 F.3d 577,
588 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689). The prejudice component
requires a convicted defendant to "show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the
outcome." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. In analyzing ineffective assistance of counsel
claims, the Court need not determine whether counsel performed deficiently if the claim
is readily dismissed for lack of prejudice. Id. at 697.
In Claims One and Four, Holmes complains that counsel should have challenged
the Indictments for aggravated sexual battery and child abuse on the grounds that they
failed to comply with Virginia Supreme Court Rules 3A:5(c)6 and 3A:6(d)7 in that they
were not returned "a true bill" and were not signed by the foreman of the grand jury. As
explained by the Supreme Court of Virginia these claims lack factual merit:
The record, including the grand jury indictments, demonstrates that the
indictments were returned "a true bill" and were signed by the foreman.
Counsel is not ineffective for failing to file a frivolous motion. Thus,
petitioner has failed to demonstrate that counsel's performance was
deficient or that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's
alleged error, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
"(c) Finding and Return of Indictment. The indictment shall be endorsed 'A True Bill' or
'Not a True Bill' and signedby the foreman. The indictment shall be returned by the grand jury
in open court." Va. Sup. Ct R. 3A:5(c).
n
"(d) Form. The indictment or information need not contain a formal commencement or
conclusion. The return of an indictment shall be signed by the foreman of the grand jury, and the
information shall be signed by the Commonwealth's attorney." Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3A:6(d).
Holmes v. Dir. of the Dep't ofCorr. (uState Habeas Op"), No. 120262, at 1-2 (Va. Aug.
22, 2012). Accordingly, Claims One and Four will be dismissed because Holmes fails to
demonstrate deficiency or prejudice.
In Claim Two, Holmes contends that he was denied the effective assistance of
counsel because counsel failed to move to dismiss the five indictments charging
aggravated sexual battery on double jeopardy grounds. The Supreme Court of Virginia
aptly explained the lack of merit to this claim as follows:
Petitioner fails to articulate a valid legal basis upon which counsel could
have moved to dismiss the indictments on double jeopardy grounds. The
record, including the indictments and the trial transcripts, demonstrates that
petitioner was charged with committing five counts of aggravated sexual
battery during a period from January 1, 2008, until December 31, 2008.
The evidence proved petitioner committed five separate acts on different
dates during this time period. Thus, petitioner has failed to demonstrate
that counsel's performance was deficient or that there is a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel's alleged error, the result of the proceeding
would have been different.
Id. at 2. Because Holmes fails to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice, Claim Two will be
dismissed.
In Claim Three, Holmes contends that counsel should have moved that the trial
judge recuse himself because he "intervened in [the] Commonwealth's defense" and
"told the Commonwealthf ] what case law to use." (Br. Supp. § 2254 Pet. 6.)8 Holmes
fails to demonstrate any deficiency or prejudice by counsel.
Petitioner fails to articulate a valid legal basis upon which counsel could
have reasonably objected to the trial court's comments. A trial judge's
expression of the legal basis for his ruling is not a per se demonstration of
8In his Briefin Support ofhis §2254 Petition, Holmes cites the Court to aportion of apretrial
hearing wherein the Circuit Court simply provided the name of the United States Supreme Court
case theprosecutor was describing in his argument. (Oct. 28, 2009 Tr. at 43.)
bias. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Furthermore,
petitioner has proffered no evidence to show the judge was biased against
him. Thus, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that counsel's performance
was deficient or that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's
alleged error, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
State Habeas Op. at 3. Accordingly, Claim Three will be dismissed.
In Claim Five, Holmes contends that he received ineffective assistance when
counsel failed to move to dismiss the three Indictments charging felony child neglect
because Holmes was arraigned on three misdemeanors and thus had no notice such
crimes were felonies. This claim lacks merit as Holmes was never charged with or
convicted of misdemeanor child neglect. State Habeas Op. at 5.
The record, including the indictments, trial orders, and trial transcripts,
demonstrates that no error occurred during the arraignment. The petitioner
was originally charged with eleven indictments: five counts of aggravated
sexual battery under Code § 18.2-67.3, three counts of felony child neglect
with reckless disregard for life under Code § 18.2-371.1(B) and three
counts of felony child neglect with serious injury under Code § 18.2371.1(A). Counsel moved to strike the evidence, which the court granted
as to the three indictments charging felony child neglect with serious injury
under Code § 18.2-371.1(A). Thus, petitioner has failed to demonstrate
that counsel's performance was deficient or that there is a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel's alleged error, the result of the proceeding
would have been different.
Id. at 4. Claim Five will be dismissed.
In Claims Six and Seven, Holmes complains about the conduct of appellate
counsel. Specifically, in Claim Six, Holmes faults appellate counsel for raising two
allegedly frivolous issues on appeal. In Claim Seven, Holmes faults counsel for failing to
raise the alleged error with respect to the child neglect charges described in Claim Five.
"Counsel is not obligated to assert all nonfrivolous issues on appeal, as '[t]here can
hardly be any question about the importance of having the appellate advocate examine
the record with a view to selecting the most promising issues for review.'" Bell v. Jarvis,
236 F.3d 149, 164 (4th Cir. 2000) (quoting Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 752 (1983)).
"Appellate counsel... enjoys a presumption that he decided which issues were most
likely to afford relief on appeal, a presumption that a defendant can rebut only when
ignored issues are clearly stronger than those presented." United States v. Baker, 719
F.3d 313, 318 (4th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Holmes fails to overcome this presumption. As the Supreme Court of Virginia observed,
the claim Holmes contends counsel should have raised was "clearly frivolous." State
Habeas Op. at 5. Claims Six and Seven will be dismissed.
III. CONCLUSION
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) will be granted. The § 2254
Petition will be denied. 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
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)). Holmes
fails to meet this standard. Accordingly, the Court will deny a certificate of appealability.
An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
HENRY E.HUDSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Richmond, Virgil
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?