Bethel, Jr v. Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 5/21/2020. Copy to Petitioner as directed. (jsmi, )
Case 3:18-cv-00011-HEH-RCY Document 20 Filed 05/21/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 304
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
RAYMOND VAUGHN BETHEL,JR.
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 3:18CV11-HEH
DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPT.
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Dismissing Remaining Claims)
Raymond Vaughn Bethel, Jr., a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings
this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254("§ 2254 Petition," ECF No. 1) challenging his
2013 conviction in the Circuit Court for the City of Chesapeake, Virginia ("Circuit
Court") for failing to register as a violent sex offender. Bethel argues that he is entitled to
relief on the following grounds:'
Claim One:
"The Commonwealth had my sentencing order changed on
9-13-13 to reflect that I was convicted as a violent sex
offender when I was not," and "because it was [changed] my
rights were violated under the 6"^ and 9"^ Amendments."
(§ 2254 Pet. 5.)
Claim Two:
"I have and I am currently facing successive probation
violation proceedings in two jurisdictions based on the same
violation," which violates the "statutory bar against
successive probation violation proceedings based on the
same violation." (Id at 8.)
'The Court corrects the capitalization, punctuation, and spelling in the quotations from Bethel's
submissions. The Court employs the pagination assigned by CM/ECF docketing system to the
parties' submissions.
Case 3:18-cv-00011-HEH-RCY Document 20 Filed 05/21/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 305
Claim Three: "I was previously charged with this same offense in the
Christian County Circuit Court in Taylorville, Illinois," and
"was extradited to Norfolk, VA on a probation violation only
and charged with this offense two weeks later in Chesapeake,
VA,in violation of my rights under the 5^^ Amendment." {Id
at 9.)
By Memorandum Order entered on September 4, 2019, the Court dismissed Claim
One and ordered further briefing on Claims Two and Three. (ECF No. 17.) For the
reasons set forth below. Claims Two and Three will be DISMISSED.
I. APPLICABLE CONSTRAINTS UPON 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 laws or treaties of
the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act("AEDPA")of 1996 further circumscribed this Court's authority to grant relief by
way of a writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, "[s]tate 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.
Case 3:18-cv-00011-HEH-RCY Document 20 Filed 05/21/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 306
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The Supreme Court has emphasized 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)).
11. PERTINENT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In rejecting Bethel's most recent state habeas petition, the Circuit Court
summarized the relevant procedural history as follows:
On February 26,2013, a Judge ofthis Court found the petitioner guilty
of failing to register as a violent sex offender, in violation of Virginia Code
§ 18.2-472.1. The Court sentenced petitioner to five years in prison with
four years and one month suspended. The Court entered the final Judgment
order on October 8, 2013.(Circuit Court No. CR12002815-00).
The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, which
denied the petition on June 5,2014.(Record No. 1854-13-1). The petitioner
then appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia. His petition was refused on
May 5, 2015.(Record No. 141321).
(ECFNo. 19-1, at 1-2.)
III. CLAIM TWO
In Claim Two, Bethel complains that "I have and I am currently facing successive
probation violation proceedings in two Jurisdictions based on the same violation," which
violates the "statutory bar against successive probation violation proceedings based on
the same violation." (§ 2254 Pet. 8.) In support ofthis claim. Bethel notes that the
Circuit Court for the City of Norfolk and the Circuit Court for the City of Chesapeake
used the same conduct to determine that he violated the term of probation issued by each
Circuit Court. Bethel fails to identify "the statutory bar against successive probation
Case 3:18-cv-00011-HEH-RCY Document 20 Filed 05/21/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 307
violation proceedings based on the same violation." Id. Moreover, a violation of state
statute fails to provide a basis for federal habeas corpus relief. See Estelle v. McGuire,
502 U.S. 62,67-68(1991)(citations omitted)("[I]t is not the province of a federal
habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions. In
conducting habeas review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction
violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."). To the extent that
Bethel suggests the action ofthe state courts ran afoul ofthe Double Jeopardy Clause, he
is mistaken. "[TJhere is no double jeopardy protection against revocation of probation
and the imposition of imprisonment." United States v. DiFrancesco,449 U.S. 117, 137,
(1980). Accordingly, Claim Two will be dismissed.
III. CLAIM THREE
In Claim Three, Bethel complains,"I was previously charged with this same
offense in the Christian County Circuit Court in Taylorville, Illinois," and "was
extradited to Norfolk, VA on a probation violation only and charged with this offense
two weeks later in Chesapeake, VA,in violation of my rights under the 5th Amendment."
(§ 2254 Pet. at 9.) Bethel completely fails to explain how his rights under the Fifth
Amendment were violated. As such. Claim Three is subject to summary dismissal.
Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 19(1963). Moreover, errors occurring in
extradition proceedings generally fail to provide a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.
Cf. Young V. Nickels, 413 F.3d 416,419(4th Cir. 2005)(observing "that failure to
comply with state or federal extradition laws does not constitute a defense to a criminal
prosecution."(quoting Wirth v. Surles, 562 F.2d 319, 323 (4th Cir. 1977))). Because
4
Case 3:18-cv-00011-HEH-RCY Document 20 Filed 05/21/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID# 308
Bethel fails to coherently state a cognizable basis for federal habeas corpus relief. Claim
Three will be dismissed.
IV. CONCLUSION
Claims Two and Three will be dismissed. The § 2254 Petition will be denied.
The action will be dismissed. A certificate of appealability will be denied.
An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/
HENRY E. HUDSON
Date:^gu 21^ 26^0
Richmond,/Virginia
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?