Williams v. Wade

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 10/27/2017. Copy mailed to pro se petitioner. (tjoh, )

n
•

fl

fl

F ff::

En

OCT 3 0 201?
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA j C'JR. US
Richmond Division
VINCENT EUGENE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

V.

Civil Action No.

3:17CV117

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Vincent Eugene Williams, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro
se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C.

§ 2254

("§ 2254 Petition,"

ECF No.

1)

challenging the

manner in which the Virginia Department of Corrections

is

executing his

fifteen-year

sentence

for

robbery

the Circuit Court for the County of Stafford

("VDOC")

imposed by

("Circuit Court").

Respondent has moved to dismiss on the grounds that,

inter alia,

Williams's sentence is fully served and thus the action is moot.
Williams has responded.
forth below,

(ECF Nos.

the Motion to Dismiss

I.

On September 24,
the Circuit Court.
Court

imposed

a

2254

sentence

25.)

(ECF No.

PROCEDURAL

1990,
(§

24,

For the reasons set
20)

will be granted.

HISTORY

Williams pled guilty to robbery in
Pet.
of

6,

ECF No.

fifteen

years

1.)^
with

The Circuit
nine

years

^ The Court employs the pagination assigned to Williams's
submissions by the CM/ECF docketing system.

i

! ^ '

suspended (the "Robbery Sentence").
No. 21-5.)

(Brown Aff. H 4d n.l, ECF

"On July 15, 2003, offender Williams became a state-

responsible offender," and " [w]hen Williams was received by the
VDOC,"

he

had

several

outstanding

sentences,

including

the

fifteen-year sentence for robbery imposed by the Circuit Court.
(Id.

^

4.)

"On

July

mandatory parole."

years

suspended

of

Corrections

2009,

the

sentence

"[Williams]

was
on

2008,

Williams

was

released

on

(Id. 1 5.)

On August 21,

four

21,

the Circuit Court revoked and reimposed

remaining

for

his

15,

by

2015,

previously

(Id.

^

7.)

Virginia

Department

of

after

the time on his Robbery Sentence.^

Williams's

conviction.

the

2016,"

On or about July 7,

on

robbery

discharged

March

time

he

had

satisfied all

of

(Id. ^ 16.)

Williams

filed a

petition for a

writ of habeas corpus with the Circuit Court wherein he alleged
that the VDOC had incorrectly calculated his sentences and that

he

had

already

imposed

by

Circuit

Court

No.

21-4,

the

at

completed
Circuit

denied

50,

54.)

the

original

sentence

(ECF

21-3,

Court.

the

petition

The

on

Supreme

Williams's petition for appeal.

No.

October

Court

(ECF No.

of

19,

for
at

robbery

9.)

2015.

Virginia

The
(ECF

refused

21-4, at 80.)

^ Williams is currently incarcerated in the Henrico County
Jail on unrelated matters.
n.l, ECF No. 21.)

(Mem.

Supp.

Resp't's Mot.

Dismiss 1

Williams

filed

his

current

challenges

§

2254

execution

Sentence,

arguing that as to the four-year term imposed by the
he

"serv[ed]

his

2,

Williams

2009,

of

February

2017.^

Circuit Court on August 21,

the

Petition on

Robbery

excessive time

totalling more time served than state law permits for completion
of a four (4) year sentence that was the remaining portion of an

original fifteen (15) year sentence."

II.

(§ 2254 Pet. 6.)

APPLICABLE CONSTRAINTS UPON FEDERAL HABEAS REVIEW

In order to

obtain

federal

habeas

relief,

at

a

minimum,

a

petitioner must demonstrate that he is "in custody in violation
of

the

Constitution or

28

U.S.C.

§

laws

2254(a).

Penalty Act

("AEDPA")

authority to grant

Specifically,

The

or

treaties

of

Antiterrorism

the

United

and

States."

Effective

Death

of 1996 further circumscribed this Court's

relief by way of

a

writ

of

habeas

corpus.

" [s]tate court factual determinations are presumed

to be correct and may be rebutted only by clear and convincing
evidence."

Gray v.

(citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d),

Branker,

529

§ 2254(e)(1)).

F.3d 220,

228

Additionally,

(4th Cir.

2008)

under 28 U.S.C.

a federal court may not grant a writ of habeas corpus

^ The earliest possible date of filing of a habeas petition
from

an

incarcerated pro

se

litigant

is

the

date

on which

the

prisoner delivered the petition to prison officials for mailing.
See

Houston

v.

Lack,

487

U.S.

266

(1988).

Here,

Williams's

§ 2254 Petition includes a declaration indicating that he placed
his petition in the prison mailing system on February 2, 2017.
(§ 2254 Pet.

12.)

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
unreasonable determination of

that was based on
the facts in light

an
of

the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.
28

U.S.C.

§

2254 (d) (1)-(2) .

The

Supreme

that the question "is not whether a
state

court's

determination

determination

was

threshold."

was

v.

incorrect

Landrigan,

but

"A

habeas

presents a

corpus

550

U.S.

1998)
no

(citing Spencer v.

case

actual

or

injury

decision."
Corp. ,

controversy

494

(stating

is

moot

U.S.

472,

the

that

Shanks,

unless

the

"be

higher

473

(2007)

no

longer

(2000)).

when

F.3d

523 U.S.

523 U.S.

7

by

§ 2,

691

a

has

of

the

(10th Cir.

(1998)).

petitioner

redressed

federal

at 7

III,

690,

1,

it

There is

suffered

favorable

an

judicial

(quoting Lewis v.

Cont'l Bank

(1990));

477

past

144

Kemna,

can

Spencer,

that

pronouncing

that

that

ANALYSIS

petition

Aragon v.

whether

465,

case or controversy under Article

Constitution."

emphasized

substantially

(citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 410

III.

has

federal court believes the

unreasonable—a

Schriro

Court

see

U.S.

courts

"are

actions

which

Spencer,

not

in

have

523

the

no

at

18

business

of

demonstrable

continuing

effect

were

right

or

wrong").

Where

a

habeas

petitioner's sentence has expired and he does not challenge the
underlying conviction itself, he must demonstrate the existence
of "collateral consequences" that rise to the level of an actual

injury.

Id.

at 14

(holding that courts will not presume any

actual injury arising from parole revocation if petitioner is no
longer

incarcerated)

631-33

(citing

Lane

v.

Williams,

455

U.S.

624,

(1982))) .

Williams had fully served the Robbery Sentence when he was

released by the VDOC on March 15, 2016.^
No.

21-5.)

Williams

February 2,

2017.

calculated

the

conviction.
conviction

"[i]n the

he

was

upon

[petitioner]
consequences

2008)
of

bears

not

not

a

the

sufficient

See

to

§

2254

serve

challenge

attempt

calculation

him.

(4th Cir.
absence

current

required

does

and does

incorrect

consequences
284

time

itself

his

Petition

on

Williams complains that the VDOC incorrectly

Williams

allegedly

280,

filed

(Brown Aff. ^ 16, ECF

to

States

the

v.

any

burden
to

of

meet

collateral

underlying
that

the

545

F.3d

(holding that
consequences,

demonstrating
Article

robbery

collateral

Hardy,

(alteration in original)
presumption of

his

demonstrate

inflicted

United

for

Ill's

collateral
case-or-

^ As discussed above, Williams is currently incarcerated in
the Henrico County Jail for an unrelated matter.
Supp. Resp't's Mot. Dismiss 1 n.l, ECF No. 21.)
5

See

(Mem.

controversy requirement"
F.3d 345, 348

Williams
moot

with

argues

the

sentence imposed
was

time

being

No.

that his
filed

Circuit
. . .

his

he

for

was

not

a

of

a[n]

habeas

active

an alleged parole violation that

towards

of

Supp.

Pet'r's

Mot.

however,

(Mem.

writ

"serving

completion

. , .

25.)

170

Petition is

§ 2254

petition

Court

[for]

served

current

The relevant inquiry,

question

Probber,

(2d Cir. 1999))).

because when he

corpus

(quoting United States v.

the

sentence

Dismiss

1,

in

ECF

is whether Williams's

Robbery Sentence had expired when he filed his § 2254 Petition
in this Court.
Williams

See Spencer,
filed

his

523 U.S.

current

§

at 7-8.
2254

Petition

after

he

was

released by the VDOC, and he does not demonstrate any collateral

consequences resulting from the allegedly incorrect calculation.^
Accordingly, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss

(ECF No. 20)

will be

^ The Court notes that Williams also challenged the
execution of his Robbery Sentence in a prior petition for a writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
See Williams v.
Clarke, No. 3:12CV305, 2013 WL 458551, at *1 (E.D, Va. Feb. 6,
2013).
The Court denied Williams's petition and dismissed the
action on February 6, 2013.
Id. at *4-5.
Williams filed a
Motion

to

Vacate

on

Motion to Vacate as

petition,
Williams

at

*2

a

15,

2013.

successive,

The

Court

unauthorized 28

and dismissed the petition for want of
v.

Clarke,

(E.D.

Petition

March

Va.

could

Nos.

July

also

be

3:11CV417,

22,

2013).

considered

3:13CV245,

Williams's
a

construed

U.S.C.

2254

jurisdiction.

2013

WL

current

successive,

§

the

3804957,

§

2254

unauthorized

habeas petition because Williams again challenges the execution
of his Robbery Sentence.
The Court does not further address
this issue because Williams was released by the VDOC before he
filed his current § 2254 Petition, rendering his current § 2254
Petition moot.

granted.®
Dismiss

Williams's Motion to Dismiss Respondent's Motion to
(ECF

No.

Petition will

be

24)

will

denied

and

be

denied

the

as

action

moot.

will

be

The

§

dismissed.

2254
A

certificate of appealability will be denied.
The

Clerk

is

directed

to

send

a

copy

of

the

Memorandum

Opinion to Williams and counsel of record.
It is

so ORDERED.

/3/
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge

Richmond, Virginia

® On

August

Substitution of
the Court will
Counsel.

7,

2017,

Respondent

filed

a

Motion

for

Counsel.
(ECF No. 18.)
For good cause shown,
grant Respondent's Motion for Substitution of