Grueninger v. Director, Virginia Department of Corrections
Filing
31
MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 12/11/17. (sbea, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
ERIC ADAM GRUENINGER,
Petitioner,
V.
Civil Action No. 3:15CV169
DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Eric Adam Grueninger, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this petition for habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition"). For the reasons set forth below, the action
will be DISMISSED AS MOOT.
A.
Pertinent State Court Proceedings
Following a bench trial,
the Circuit Court convicted Grueninger of two counts of indecent
liberties with a child under age fifteen, two counts of
aggravated sexual battery by a parent with a child at least
thirteen but less than fifteen, one count of rape, three counts of
forcible sodomy, two counts of object sexual penetration, nine
counts of possession of child pornography, and one count of
distribution of child pornography. Thereafter, the Court sentenced
Grueninger to 235 years in prisonwith 147 years suspended.
Grueninger v. Dir., Va, Dep't of Corr.^ No. 3:13CV260, 2014 WL 2925285, at *1 (E.D. Va.
June 27, 2014) (internal and external citations omitted). For ease of reference, the Court refers
to the charges in bold as the "sexual abuse charges." As a condition of his suspended sentences,
the Circuit Court ordered that Grueninger "was to have 'no direct or indirect contact' with his
daughter." Grueninger v. Commonwealth^ No. 0211-13-2, at 2 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2013).
Despite the foregoing prohibition,
once incarcerated, on four separate occasions, Grueninger mailed various cards
and letters to his daughter by sending them to her in care of his wife at his wife's
post office box address. His wife intercepted the letters and forwarded them to
the local police. At his revocation hearing, the Commonwealth submitted these
cards and letters into evidence. Grueninger admitted he had "absolutely" sent the
cards and correspondence. Finding he had violated the terms of his suspended
sentences, the trial court revoked the 147-year suspension, and resuspended 146
years.
Id.
For ease of reference, the Court refers to this term of imprisonment as "the probation
violation sentence." The probation violation sentence flowed from one of the sexual abuse
charges. (ECF No. 28 H2.)
B.
Prior § 2254 Proceeding with Respect to the Revocation of the Suspended
Sentence and the Original Convictions
Thereafter, Grueninger filed the present 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition challenging the
revocation of his suspended sentence. See Grueninger v. Dir., Va. Dep't Corr., No. 3:15CV169,
2016 WL 438974, at *1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 3, 2016). By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered
on February 3, 2016, the Court denied the § 2254 Petition. Id. at *4.
Previously, Grueninger had filed a separate 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition challenging his
convictions for child pornography and the sexual abuse of his daughter. See Grueninger v. Dir.,
Va. Dep't Corr., 813 F.3d 517, 523 (4th Cir. 2016). The Court dismissed the petition. See id.
Grueninger appealed. On February 9, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit reversed in part the decision of this Court and "remand[ed] with instructions that
the district court issue Grueninger a writ of habeas corpus as to the sexual abuse charges unless
the Commonwealth endeavors, within a reasonable period of time, to prosecute him in a new
trial on those counts without utilizing [Grueninger's] confession." Id. at 532.
Accordingly, by Order entered February 12, 2016, the Court vacated the February 3, 2016
Memorandum Opinion and Order which had dismissed the § 2254 Petition that had challenged
the revocation of Grueninger's suspended sentence. (ECFNo. 19.)
The Commonwealth has now reprosecuted and convicted Grueninger with respect to the
sexual abuse charges. Because it appeared that the probation violation sentence that was the
subject of the underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition in this matter no longer exists, by
Memorandum Order entered on October 27, 2017, the Court directed Respondent to inform this
Court as to whether this matter can be dismissed as moot and provide a copy of any state court
record that reflects that the probation violation sentence no longer exists.
On November 15, 2017, Respondent filed his response and confirmed that the action is
moot as the probation violation sentence that was the subject of the underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Petition in this matter no longer exists. (ECF No. 30
5-6.) Accordingly, the action WILL BE
DISMISSED AS MOOT. The Court will DENY a certificate of appealability.
An appropriate Final Order shall issue.
It is so ORDERED.
Date:
^
Richmond, Virginia
JohnA.Gibney, Jr. /
7
United States Distria Jirag
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?