Grandel v. Clarke

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 8/7/14. (Mailed to pro se petitioner)(jtho, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

DOMONA T. GRANDEL,

Petitioner,
v.

Civil Action No. 3:13CV548

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Domona T. Grandel, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se and informa pauperis,

brings this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition") challenging his conviction
in the Circuit Court of the City of Williamsburg and the County of James City, Virginia ("Circuit
Court"). In his § 2254 Petition, Grandel argues entitlement to relief based upon the following

grounds:1
Claim One:

Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by:

(a)
(b)

"accepting] the position of the Commonwealth without
developing adequate adversarial conflict" (State Pet. 11);
"fail[ing] to inform [Grandel] on self-defense instruction" (id);
and,

(c)

failing to question Investigator Gibbs about the statement of a
witness (id. at 11-12).

Claim Two:

Counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to preserve the
argument for appeal that Grandel lacked the requisite intent to commit
aggravated malicious wounding. (§ 2254 Pet. 7-9; State Pet. 14-16.)

1 Grandel lists rambling and semi-coherent claims in his § 2254 Petition and indicates
that he raised the same claims in his state habeas petition. Respondent agrees that Grandel's
"§ 2254 petition is nearly identical" to his state petition. (Br. Supp. Mot. Dismiss 3, ECF
No. 12.) While the claims listed in his § 2254 Petition are not identical to the claims Grandel
raised in his state petition, the Court follows Respondent's lead and addresses the claims Grandel
raised in the state petition ("State Petition") attached to his § 2254 form. (See State Pet. 3-26,
ECF No. 1-1.) The Court employs the pagination assigned by the CM-ECF docketing system
for citations to and quotations from the State Petition.