Joyner v. Edmonds

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 10/27/2017. (mailed copy to pro se Petitioner) (nbrow)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division McKINLEY COLUMBUS JOYNER, ~5 ~ l _____,,_________JI I CLEHK, Petitioner, t;.s_ O!STri!CT COU:=!T RICHMOND. VA Civil Action No. 3:17CV100 BERNARD W. BOOKER, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION McKinley Columbus proceeding pro se, § 2254 ("§ 2254 Joyner, a Virginia state prisoner brings this petition pursuant to 2 8 U.S. C. Petition," ECF No. 4) challenging his convictions in the Circuit Court for the County of Arlington, Virginia ("Circuit Court") . alia, on the ground that governing federal habeas Joyner has responded. the one-year statute of the § inter limitations 2254 Petition. The matter is ripe for disposition. I. A. Respondent moves to dismiss, petitions bars PROCEDURAL HISTORY What Is Joyner Challenging? At the outset, the Court notes that Joyner has been convicted of more than one group of sexual crimes involving two women stemming difficult to from events on November 4, 2010, discern exactly which convictions fNI ~ /~0~;;;~111 ~ ~ . v. ~ [L he making it intends to challenge here. 1 On the standardized form Joyner was required to complete in order to pursue his federal habeas, Joyner indicated that he challenges "CR 11-1277 and CR," with May 29, 2012 as the date of sentencing, a sentence of 5 7 years, and that he was convicted of "forcible sodomy, abduction with intent to defile, and the use of a This corresponds firearm during a felony." with Case Numbers (§ CRll-1277, 2254 Pet. 2.) CRll-1278, and CRll-1279 in the Circuit Court for the County of Arlington. 1. On Crimes Against A.D. 2 October 17, 2011, a grand jury charged Joyner with forcible sodomy, use or display of a firearm while committing or attempting to commit forcible sodomy or abduction, and abduction with the intent to defile. Commonwealth v. Joyner, No. CRll- Joyner was also indicted for crimes occurring on October 10, 2010, against a third woman, K.G. See Notice and Motion to Sever at 1, Commonwealth v. Joyner, No. CRll-42 (Va. Cir. Ct. filed Oct. 13, 2011) . Joyner pled guilty to rape, forcible sodomy, and use of a firearm on January 24, 2012, and the abduction with the intent to defile charge was dismissed. See http://www.courts.state.va.us/main.htm (select "Case Status and Information;" select "Circuit Court" from drop-down menu; select hyperlink for "Case Information;" select "Arlington Circuit Court" from drop-down menu and follow "Begin" button; type "Joyner, McKinley," and then follow "Search by Name" button; then follow hyperlinks for the numbers "CR11000261-00 through CR11000264-00"). "The Circuit Court's docket is accessible through the Virginia Judicial System Website. Federal Courts in the Eastern District of Virginia regularly take judicial notice of the information contained on this website." McClain v. Clarke, No. 3:13CV324, 2013 WL 6713177, at *l n.6 (E.D. Va. Dec. 18, 2013) (citations omitted). Joyner does not appear to contest these convictions in his § 2254 Petition. 1 The Court identifies the two sets of convictions by victim when necessary to differentiate between each. 2 2 1277, at 1 (Va. Cir. Ct. Oct. 17, 2011); Commonwealth v. Joyner, No. CRll-1278, at 1 (Va. Cir. Ct. Oct. 17, 2011); Commonwealth v. Joyner, No. CRll-1279, at 1 (Va. Cir. Ct. Oct. 17, 2011). On January 19, 2012, a jury found Joyner guilty of forcible sodomy and use or display of a firearm while committing or attempting to commit forcible sodomy or abduction. at 1 (Va. (Va. Cir. Ct. Jan. Cir. Ct. Jan. 19, 19, Joyner, No. CRll-1277, 2012); Joyner, No. 2012). CRll-1278, at 1 The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the abduction with intent to defile count, and the Court granted the motion for a mistrial on that count. Joyner, No. CRll-1279, 23, 2012, at 2 (Va. Cir. Ct. Jan. 25, 2012). On January the jury fixed Joyner's punishment at three years of incarceration for the firearm incarceration for the forcible No. CRll-1277, at 1 (Va. Cir. conviction sodomy Ct. Jan. and six years Joyner, conviction. 23, of 2012); Joyner, No. CRll-1278, at 1 (Va. Cir. Ct. Jan. 23, 2012). On May 29, 2012, the Circuit Court sentenced Joyner to the nine-year sentence imposed by the jury. 1277, at 1 (Va. Cir. Ct. July 2, 2012); Joyner, at 1 (Va. Cir. Ct. July 2, 2012). these two counts on July 2, See Joyner, No. No. CRll- CRll-1278, The Court entered judgment on 2012, intent to defile count was dismissed. and the abduction with the Joyner, No. CRll-1277, at 2 (Va. Cir. Ct. July 2, 2012); Joyner, No. CRll-1278, at 2 (Va. 3 Cir. Ct. July 2, 2012); Joyner, No. CRll-1279, at 2 (Va. Cir. Ct. July 2, 2012). Joyner appealed these convictions. Court of Appeals On June 17, of Virginia denied his petition for (ECF No. 13-1, at 1.) On March 26, 2014, On June 13, 2014, the appeal. the Supreme Court of Virginia refused Joyner's petition for appeal. at 2.) 3 2013, (ECF No. 13-2, the Supreme Court of Virginia denied Joyner's petition for rehearing. (ECF No. 13-2, at 1.) On the third and fourth pages of his standardized form for his § 2254 Petition, Joyner identifies the Court of Appeals of Virginia case number as "Record No. 1152-12-4" and the United States Supreme Court case number as "Certiorari Number 14-7060." (Id. at 3-4.) Record No. 1152-12-4 does not correspond with the above-described appellate proceedings, which bear the Court of Appeals of Virginia Case Record No. 1153-12-4. 1 , at 1 ; ECF No . 13 - 2 , at 1 . ) stems from a "Record No. 1152-12-4" separate set of convictions in the Circuit Court for the County of Arlington, CRll-259. Instead, (See ECF No. 13- Case Nos. (ECF No. 13-3, at 1.) CRll-42, CRll-258, and Certiorari Number 14-7060 does indeed correspond with a petition for writ of certiorari Joyner filed in conjunction with No. 13-5, at 1.) the crimes against A.D. (See ECF By Order entered January 14, 2015, the Supreme The Court employs the pagination assigned to the exhibits to the Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss by the CM/ECF docketing system. 3 4 Court of the United States denied Joyner's petition for a writ of certiorari. (See id.) 2. Crimes Against S.P. For the second group of convictions in the Circuit Court, on January 18, sodomy. 2011, a grand jury charged Joyner with forcible Commonwealth v. Joyner, No. CRll-42, at 1 (Va. Cir. Ct. Jan. 18, 2011) . On March 21, 2011, a grand jury charged Joyner with use or display of a firearm while committing or attempting to commit forcible sodomy or abduction, intent to defile. Commonwealth v. (Va. Cir. Ct. Mar. 23, 259, at 1 and abduction with the Joyner, No. CRll-258, at 1 2011); Commonwealth v. Joyner, No. CRll- (Va. Cir. Ct. Mar. 23, 2011) . 4 On January 5, 2012, a jury found Joyner guilty of all three counts. Joyner, No. CRll- 42, at 1 (Va. Cir. Ct. Jan. 5, 2012); Joyner, No. CRll-258, at 1 (Va. Cir. Ct. Cir. Ct. Jan. Jan. 5, 5, 2012); 2012) . Joyner, No. On January 6, CRll-259, 2012, the at 1 (Va. jury fixed Joyner's punishment at five years of incarceration for forcible sodomy, twenty years intent to defile, display of a of incarceration for abduction with the and three years of incarceration for use or firearm while committing or attempting to commit Accompanying the indictments for the Crimes Against S.P., the grand jury also charged Joyner with forcible sodomy, abduction with the intent to defile, and second count of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony involving yet a fourth woman, L. K. , that were apparently dismissed. See Notice and Motion for Joinder of Offenses at 1, Commonwealth v. Joyner, No. CRll-42 (Va. Cir. Ct. filed Oct. 18, 2011). 4 5 forcible sodomy or abduction. Joyner, No. CRll-42, at 1 (Va. Cir. Ct. Jan. 6, 2012); see Joyner, No. CRll-258, at 1 (Va. Cir. Ct. Jan. 12, 2012); Joyner, No. CRll-259, at 1 (Va. Cir. Ct. Jan. 12, 2012). On May 29, the crimes 2012, the same day as Joyner was sentenced for against A. D. , crimes against S.P. Joyner was also 2, 2012) ; No. CRll-258, at 2012); Joyner, No. CRll-259, at 1 The judgment on Court 2012. entered Joyner, No. the jury for the crimes See Joyner, No. CRll-42, at 1 Joyner, for The Circuit Court sentenced Joyner to the twenty-eight-year sentence imposed by the against S.P. sentenced CRll-42, 1 (Va. these at 2 (Va. Cir. Ct. July (Va. Cir. Ct. July Cir. Ct. July 2, three (Va. Cir. counts Ct. 2, 2012). on July 2, July 2, 2012); Joyner, No. CRll-258, at 2 (Va. Cir. Ct. July 2, 2012); Joyner, No. CRll-259, at 2 (Va. Cir. Ct. July 2, 2012). On June 17, Joyner appealed these convictions. Court of appeal. Appeals of Virginia denied (ECF No. 13-3, at 1.) Joyner's On March 26, t at 2 •) On June 13 , 2O14 , the Supreme denied Joyner's petition for rehearing. Because, convictions in the Joyner end, it challenges is of because 6 the petition for 2014, Court of Virginia refused the petition for appeal. 4 2013, the Supreme (ECF No. 13- Court of Virginia (ECF No. 13-4, at 1.) no his import § 2254 which set of Petition is untimely, the Court simply assumes that Joyner intends to challenge all five of his convictions here. B. Habeas Proceedings Instead, Initially, Joyner filed no state habeas petition. on August 11, 2015, Joyner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § Younce, Va. No. 3:15CV468 (E.D. Memorandum Opinion and Order Court dismissed because he Joyner v. without had failed Younce, No. filed Aug. 11, entered on March prejudice to Joyner v. 2254 in this Court. exhaust 3:15CV468, Joyner's available § 2015). 15, 2016, 2254 state 2016 WL 1070821, By the petition remedies. at *2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 15, 2016). On May 6, 2016, Joyner filed a state habeas petition in the Supreme Court of Virginia. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 1, Joyner v. Younce, No. 160707 (Va. filed May 6, 2016.) October 18, 2016, the Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed his state habeas petition as untimely. On January 25, On 2017, (ECF No. 13-6, at 1.) Joyner submitted his initial pleading in the present federal habeas proceeding. That submission was a rambling letter accompanied by a mishmash of excerpts of forms, research, prior opinions, proceedings. 5 and documents from his state court By Memorandum Order entered on February 28, 2017, Joyner failed to use the standardized form required for filing a § 2254 petition. Joyner also failed to indicate when he deposited his petition in the institution mail room for 5 7 the Court directed Joyner standardized form for to return the § 2254 petition within fifteen days of the date of entry thereof. The Court warned Joyner that the "Court's relief shall filing a and complete consideration of be limited to Petitioner's the grounds grounds and for habeas supporting facts concisely set forth on this standardized form and any attached pages." ( ECF No . 2, "Petitioner may not (Id. at 2.) The Court also instructed that at 1- 2 . ) incorporate other documents by reference." On March 10, 2017, Joyner complied with the Court's directives and filed his § Court. Petition, In his § 2254 2254 Petition that is now before the Joyner seeks relief on the following ground: 6 Claim One: "The Constitution require [s] all case files made available to the public after a final mailing to this Court or sign his submission with any date that could possibly correspond with his filing of this action. Thus, the Court must use the date it was received in this Court as the filed date. Respondent references several other claims that Joyner "appears to raise" in the "pages attached to the form petition." (Br. Supp. Mot. Dismiss 5.) Joyner filed no additional pages listing claims with his form petition that he filed on March 10, 2017. The only document attached was a copy of this Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order from his prior civil action and the decision of the Supreme Court of Virginia on October 18, 2016. The Court has no idea to what document Respondent refers. To the extent that Respondent is referring to some attachment to his initial habeas filing, the Court explicitly stated in the Memorandum Order directing Joyner to file on the standardized form that it would only consider grounds stated on this standardized form and any attached pages. Moreover, because Joyner's § 2254 Petition is untimely, the Court need not address the merits of Joyner's claim or claims. 6 8 decision [of] the courts in the U.S.A. Thus opportunity is made public 'facts' that were presented to the jury. The court files did not contain copy of warrant for the 4th, 5th search of my property. Therefore my constitutional right[s] were violated." 7 (§ 2254 Pet. 5.) For the reasons discussed below, Joyner's § 2254 Petition is untimely and barred from review here. II. A. ANALYSIS Statute Of Limitations Respondent contends that the federal statute of limitations bars Joyner's claim. Section Effective Death Penalty Act 101 ("AEDPA") of the Antiterrorism amended 28 U.S.C. § and 2244 to establish a one-year period of limitation for the filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a pursuant to the judgment of a U.S.C. 1. § state court. person in custody Specifically, 28 2244(d) now reads: A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of(A) (B) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State The Court employs that pagination assigned to Joyner's submissions by the CM/ECF docketing system. The Court corrects the spacing and capitalization in quotations from Joyner's submissions. 7 9 action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action; the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. (C) (D) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection. 2. u.s.c. 28 B. § 2244(d). Commencement Of The Statute Of Limitations Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(l)(A) 1. Crimes Against A.D. Became Final January 12, 2015 Joyner's judgment for the Crimes Against A.D. became final on Monday, January 12, 2015, when the Supreme Court of United States denied his petition for writ of certiorari. Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 704 (4th Cir. 2002) the See (" [T]he one- year limitation period begins running when direct review of the state conviction direct review § is has completed or when expired the II time for seeking 28 U.S.C. (citing 2244(d) (1) (A))); see also Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 527 (2003) Supreme (explaining Court] affirms that a "[f]inality conviction on 10 attaches the merits when [the on direct review or denies a petition for a writ of certiorari, or when the time for filing a certiorari petition expires"). 2. Crimes 2014 Against S. P. Became Final September 11, The Crimes Against S.P. became final on Thursday, September 11, 2014, ninety days after the Supreme Court of Virginia denied Joyner's petition for rehearing, when the time expired for Joyner to petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States for those convictions. See Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 527 (2003). Joyner would have been required to file a with claims challenging the Crimes Against S.P. § § 2254 Petition earlier than a 2254 Petition with claims challenging the Crimes Against A.D. Nevertheless, the Court simply uses the later date of January 12, 2015, when the Crimes Against A.D. became final, as the date on which both of Joyner's convictions became final in state court for the purposes of its statute of limitations analysis. Even with the benefit of the Joyner's § later date of January 12, 2015, 2254 Petition remains untimely, because it was filed more than one year after finality attached. C. No Entitlement To Statutory Tolling To qualify for statutory tolling, an action must be a (1) properly filed (2) post-conviction or other collateral review of (3 ) the pertinent judgment . 28 u.s.c. § 2244 (d) (2). Joyner filed his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 11 28 U.S.C. 2254 § Joyner's first "application review" in this Court on August 11, federal for within habeas petition fails State the post-conviction meaning of the or 2015. However, to qualify as an other AEDPA, thus, collateral he lacks entitlement to tolling during the pendency of his first habeas petition. Duncan (quoting 28 Next, Court of u.s.c. v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001) 2244 (d) (2)). § Joyner's state habeas petition filed in the Supreme Virginia on limitations period. May 6, 2016, also fails to toll the This is so because the one-year period in which to file a federal habeas petition had already expired on January 12, 2016. See Deville v. Johnson, No. 1:09CV72, 2010 WL 148148, at *2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 12, 2010) (citing Webster v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 2000)). Thus, the limitation period ran from January 12, expired on January 12, 2016. § 2015, and Joyner failed to file the present 2254 Petition until January 25, 2017, more than one year after the expiration of the limitations period. limitations bars the § Thus, the statute of 2254 Petition unless Joyner demonstrates entitlement to a belated commencement of the limitation period under 28 generous U.S.C. § 2244 (d) (1) (B)- (D) reading of Joyner's § 2254 or equitable tolling. A Petition suggests that he argues that his circumstances require a belated commencement of the limitations period under 28 U.S.C. 12 § 2244(d) (1) (D). D. No Entitlement To A Belated Commencement In support of his states the following: attorney therefore available to me I belated commencement argument, "I am doing this pro se, have worked on this in the prison system. given I Joyner am not a [n] the resources Limited access to law library and mail restrictions required more time to discover the factual predicate of said claims thr[ough] due diligence." (§ 2254 Pet. 13.) Whether a petitioner has exercised due diligence to warrant a belated commencement of the limitation period pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (1) (D) case. See Wims v. United States, 2000) . is a fact-specific inquiry unique to each Cir. prisoner 2006). make Due 818 reasonable (8th Cir. F.3d 708, 712 alleges DiCenzi v. diligence supporting his claims." 814, [he least require[s] to diligence. begins In re Moreover, to run discover (quoting Aron v. she] did Boshears, under when F.3d 465, 471 that the a facts Anjulo-Lopez v. United States, 541 F.3d 2008) or 452 "at effort·s (11th Cir. 2002)). that Rose, § the 110 not actually 291 F.3d petitioner know the facts thereby demonstrate due 1538, 2244 (d) (1) (D), 13 United States, A habeas applicant who "merely underlying his or her claim does not" 1997) . (2d Cir. A petitioner bears the burden to prove that he or she exercised due diligence. (6th 225 F.3d 186, 190-91 1540 (11th Cir. the limitation period knows, or through due diligence could have potential claim, significance. discovered, not when the factual he See Schlueter v. predicate recognizes Varner, 384 for their F. 3d 69, a legal 74 (3rd Cir. 2004); Owens v. Boyd, 235 F.3d 356, 359 (7th Cir. 2000). Here, Joyner states nothing more for § 2244 (d) (1) (D). unaware of Joyner's the vague than the In the absence of a factual statement predicate that for the legal standard showing that he was a particular limited prison resources "require[d] more time to discover the factual predicate" Pet. 13.), fails limitations. Cir. 1998) right to to provide See Flanagan v. any Johnson, ("Section 2244 (d) (1) (D) an refuge extended delay from the does not convey a a (§ 2254 statute 154 F. 3d 196, while claim, habeas 199 of (5th statutory petitioner gathers every possible scrap of evidence that might, by negative implication, support his claim.") Joyner also provides no argument that he was reasonably diligent to discover the facts underlying his claim. Accordingly, Joyner cannot rely on § 2244(d) (1) (D) to render his§ 2254 Petition timely filed. Joyner has failed to demonstrate any basis for excusing his failure to comply with the statute of limitations. 8 Neither Joyner nor the record suggest a basis for a belated commencement of the limitation period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (B)-(C) or for equitable tolling. 8 14 III. Accordingly, Respondent's will be granted. The 2254 § CONCLUSION Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) Petition will be denied and the action will be dismissed. An appeal may not be taken from the final proceeding order in a § 2254 unless a judge certificate of appealability ("COA''). 28 U.S.C. A COA will showing of § not issue unless the denial of a 2253 (c) (2). This a satisfied "reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, agree been that) the petition "a constitutional right." is should have a 2253 (c) (1) (A). § prisoner makes requirement issues substantial 28 u.s.c. only when for that matter, resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were 'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" 529 U.S. 473, 880, 893 & n.4 484 (2000) (1983)). Slack v. McDaniel, (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. No law or evidence suggests that Joyner is entitled to further consideration in this matter. A COA will therefore be denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to Joyner and counsel of record. It is so ORDERED. /s/ /Z[tJ? Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Date: <t}t,,f"~ d. 71 )Pl 7 15

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?