Lacey Jr. #158049 v. Murray, et al

Filing 1

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge James C. Turk on 10/4/1991. (tvt)

:.
'

:r j: ,
;!$ .!..:-;r;.j..,y :.. ...
ï- . .-tji.:..)fj ....
..1 -u > jt.y: y j
, . -j .
, - j j.
) : ,(.q.:.
:j ,
;
..
.

...

,

's ? ; .; j
.
.

-.

, ,,
) :

.

!! ! '
i!;ik!:l'j:',;:.;..! r
l..'-.-kff. .-:.;s ,' ;.
7.k1'k; f . .. ;
..j.(!, t
: t:J .
I;
;
.
i., .?)k.v).(z.,u...... .
'x( .,s:k::!,..k ;...
''
..s .. .. < , y. . ,.
.
: ' 1 ' 2. . . . . j.
: f # ;:
; 1 )
. ,
;
,

. :' '
z,
:.
p
'' :.r . . .., .
:'., .. s ï
% ..
. . ..

'
GLERKSDFFI ''' '' .'
9
C*, S. e Lcoum
U. 7 s '
DI
!.,TFf !NOKE # 'e. '
' QA , ', A.':
.
A
,
),
' q
' '
,.

.

'. . x . .
'

. -

IN KTR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURv
PT

#OR

WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINTA

.

''

.

.

.

.

'
.

;Xf'''-'.
' 7t
(.
&ëJ. i'
'
:

'' '

.

gc; -'' , j
-. jj . j
. ' )T
.j
j
' ''

,

,

RnAWOKR DIVISION

'

.
.

F jL E o
,,

J
oYc F.wl Ir
R ak
'
:P t .ol. k'
: z er

BF

Petitioner y

t
'

.
': ' 2.
. 'r
':. '.. :. ..
t
.. . . k ,,
j : ;
.:

:.'

:

.

.
'

Civ il Action No . ,:k ''',j , l-R. ( l ! (fE)( ,.
9lr025 x l :
, :',
,.t:
,
p
''
'r !.(? :.
)
.
.' .
.. :
.
r
2
.
MEMORANRN OPINION :,' -kj'Jr, i
,! ;, 3:
, !. ,
;
,
'
' ,, t.
'
,
.

.

.

.

,

MT NAY , et al.#
m

.t
' .. $ .. '. . .
,
z . . ' '
v
.
. - .., .
...
'
-

'

::
.
: ;
! . : . ).
'
.
r
:

'
.

j / ,Tr:' .
. .o t j
'
.
'
. 1. , ..:.
y Ij
:
)
.
.
.

.,.
'''. :
' . . i.

r
à -.
.

,'', : . )
k
. . '
By z Hoh Jnmes C . ' rki..j:j.:, .: :j(;.u
RA . ,g.',.l f .; '' .
. k. i. :. ; . .r. j
,
,
Chief U . S . Distro . ,j . .. ..:j,!p
. : ,''
t Judge . . ) '
ê '
è

Respondents .

.

.

.

/.. ..
.'
:
:'
.t .!
' l:k , t 1 ' '
. :'
:l' .y J. .
.J
.:.1
)t i ! ' 1
:
!
L'â,%.. .,' .JI j
. f.èj:' -( ; j
l t.;' -... .
i ( ?' . I
. ; :
L ;
(
.

.

.

.
.

.

,

','
)
:

.

.

,

:: t'.1!t..y.i, .J
. t..' ( . ' .
.
a .' . ; .
.
. .

..

.

, ..:
..
.
:. . ; . ..
s,t@/.. .
. i ., , :
,' ... !
t, : .
. .
'i...r- .
:. rk. ..,
,1 .t ',r
' .' '
.
.
)
.

)j . - ..
. ;.
ç ;

Daughton Willinm Lacey , a V irginia inr
.
. ?.
. (
nate proceed:.. . pro se, i,.,
;
, .)
,s%ing ;. (
( .
..Ir: ,. yr..;
:. !. .:
;
;y;
, ..y
,;
j
.. s
,
)1. : .
;.
'
this petitioh for a writ of habeas corpus pursù' (to. : J'.: ,
ant .i ; 28 : .j.
,
.(
)
'
'
.

,

.

,

.

. '.
..
.

.. .

.

.

$ 2254.

;
. z .,
'. ,

..

.

't '
1
:
1
$

.'
'
.'

'
t '' . 1
' 1. ...
'
'

.

.

Petitioner was convidted of first deqyeè . ùrder
l
m
'

'
'
. .. '
r

)' '
(
'

a jùry trial in the Frederick County circuik.. L
,.
?I
e
'
:
court
'
ï
l .
.
.. '.
'.
. . . J1
.
.

Hù S jes(
'
alle 4
'

1987 and was sentenced to life in prisop .

.p

j..
') '

..
.

the follow ing grounds entitle him to habeas corpus '
relief :
i

'

j
.' ..
-..
j
A . The Commonwealth ' Attorney allowed several witnesses. : . ,..:t,.( . ,
s
to .,F; L ,
' '' '
.
,
..
.
g.
testify as to petitioner's prior criminal conviçtibn,.in :..g>. .-,'t:
.:j) : .
.
.
.
'
.

violation of the trial judge' order;
s

' , M'
' '

. ..

.
1
-

.. ':.' *!
, i ' 1i
. 1 . : 'è
'
:
..

.

.' ''',.7) , c..
:' .. - ' : ' .
:
.

B . The Commo:wealth ' Attorney knowingly
s

'

;1 :.'.'
'1 ,: ;
J
.
.

'.:

.),. è:: ,:.
!. ; . . ,.
:
used t alspyteskjmo'y '.,;:i..:,'
f
- n ,.,l'y')..
;:'j$..,r
.:.:' ,,
'',(,., ,y ,y
. $
5 .
,.
.
: ,y
.

.

.

..

,

and ref
used to comply with peti
tioner' counsel# ,
s
s di4co
very :.), :,,
./t..)
::,: :,
,)
I:
k,
.

requestB l

.,, , . .
,

..'
..

.s)':, .f-:
)i,!. 1 ,
!?' (
!f.
i',. , .L
;'

'

,.
.

! :i').
:
i
'
.;''..'2'
, )

.

.

'

.

.

'k.
.

.

''
' .1.t'. '::2
. ;4 .'..t,.t...
. ; g
'j'. .'.'
l : .
'
blood , , R:;j'., 1j;
on , ?u.;) ,; (
i : ,. , ,
. , ,

k
I
;

.

(1)( Kristie M derspn testified that she sav
a)

.

.

. .

the petitioner l pants, but the only substahge, ' i (s.jjièxf;-.-;.
r
s
'*pz j(j i'. h'. ;t
'
5
rj k'- : ' ) f,
y s $g q . ' r;
j .) $ ' ,
'
'
) :
.
; ) ) , 2). J .
7 .2 ',
. ...
,

v .' '

pants was red candle wax ;

.

.

j: ,
: .
.

:
y

. .

'

.

. '

,9.:,: . . :, .:;;
: . ' :î :..
., ,j r .. ;r
ë
j

.
)

.

y
,

:

.
.
.r ..

g

.

(l)(
b) The Com onwealth ' Attorney failed t6 disclose . :. . .:.
s
, èt 2 L,
1
:
;

the certificate of the test of blood on petiki u . ' ::;.r' ,y)'.
.oner s(?. :; ,
;. k , :à
7
;
:
pants conducted by the Bureau of Forensid Sçiencd . ''Thé t''' ''. ,r:.
l:. '
:1
certificate revealed that the blood on peiitionèr!.' #ants ''. .' .. 1 !r)
' ..
s:
t.: ,
'.L! .J , ,
t
'
t
.
.
:
' tr .,!s
! 2
did not màtch that of the victim, and this lyii pnce w oûld.,y i: :': :
d
,
..v q
.'
, : .(; 'J : .
t . ,,
. .
(
have exculpated the petitioner ;
:';qjj ') t j ; J r .yj,(;s
.
.' ,,j..'..'.j t)yy.)g. , , :.
'! çj'ë'j ...' jjç. .,
,
:;j,' .. : j .,
':.. ' r
ï : ;
j . .
!,
,

. .

.

'

.

,

.

.

.

.

.

'

.

,
, .

.

,.

.

.
.

.
,

...

.:i. .
'-'
,9
.

.

.jg .,
g. .t
j ; ,;
,
t
.

L

'
(2) Lawrence Avery te/tified that the victim F@g :'killed 'i .,( . .'
::.1
. (
.
,
j
.
s:
g '.
in a shopping m all , whereas the Commonwealth 's theory V:s t g . ' ?
: 9 !;
' q i;,
i :
p
')
.

.

.

. .
,

,

that the victim had been killed on ay mountaih;. r
.
. .
.
x
,.Jy
g'.
..
.;

..

:

(3)

.
.

'

j 4
.. . . . .
?1 j;, ys.y
(:
.
%
'

. .

.

)i ) :;, i
;
;
(,
,, ,

t

,

.

j

y .yj ,
r j, :
,.
,
!.
;..
,
!

Earl Lacey ( relation to petitioper) j
no
l
r i iRd':
tpstif
:,
!,

that petitioner had admitted killing the J ictim . p
v
t
.

veNy ;. ,
.

during a basketball game at the Fréderick:Cöùpiy:Jail,
f
'

'
.

'
.)j., .. .-. ..J k; :
:; . ,. ... ? .
.' . j ( . .
,2. 1:' .- : ( .,

:
'

,. .. ..

.2:
t

r.).(,)'i
:.E;;.'(;g
) ' ). )qi
' * ).' #
1 :
'
.

rq:.,7
);'' 1
, . :
' .
)
.!
(
. 2(

.

.

.

.
!
i
,
r
t

r,
.
.
.

,

:,$
. )
y,

,,
.
.
.

.

.
7

(2) counsel failed to move for produètipn 'bf .
'
è the
certifi
cate of anal
ysis and obj 'to àqd a//qal.'
ect'
this
:
.
) (r ..
t :
j:. '
,

.

.

claim;

-è.) .
kt y .
è
.
.
T. .
,
.
.
.

.

.
..

,:
:
. '
''

l'
.,
'

.

.
.

(3) Counsel failed to object to and appqal therusê of
J
q.
perjured testimony;
) ' %
.
' .
.
.

.
.,.

.

TEi)ùj.,.
7,':,'.. r j, .g
)t ' '
j. y :
;j

:.:

.

.

( ) Couns failed to rais ground ( , ap/ez1, :;
4
el
e
C) on . : .; q
.
.
:
.

,

,

(
5) Counsel failed to raise ground (D) on appeal;
l: .
'

.'
'
'

( counsez fazz to purs tse s
6)
ed
ue
peeuy srzazpz.,ue . y
j
;

.

,

'
.
. . ...

.f : );:.. 1 .
. , q,s ,
,
.!:(
.
'
. f

trial or on appeal ;

'
.'
.

t
-

.
,

v.
?-

(7) Counsel failed to raise the ground of ipsBj*iciençy
of the evidence on appeal ;

' ')
è '.
J J:.
' (-'
( .

' '
.'
.
.
l.:
,
r

'

.

'
..

. .
.

(a) coupsez fazzed to object to th. use o: ts. .yrpbzà:

witness ;

: ':. '
j !.
.

'

.

::
'
ê
.

.

( Coqnsel f
9)
ailed to move f a continuance ( :pkeparp
or
p
0
.

for that F itness # testimony ;
s

. ..

!y.i
. :;
. .:

: ..,..
r .
. .
,

.

$. ,
.

(10) Co el failed to raisp the false arres ysype;
uns
t
.
..

.

' .:
J....
. j
.

è
:

.
.

..
.

.

i.
.

(11) Counsel failed to subpoena Keith Keistey l
despite
:
,

petitiongr 's request ;
'

;

(1 ) Co el fail to challenge the sufficiepç# pf
2
uhs
ed

indictments at trial or on appeal ;

l'
'
.
;'
'

)-' .

;

' ''
,

' '.
.

(13) Counsel failëd to voir dire the jury gn whekxerr,
, .
i
. - :
they had read the prejudiciàl newsp.per . . - .' :.:. ,:..t; y:)..:
a
artiçlei j . . . : ,. j . ,
; è
. r
t . L. t .:
)
. j.: :
.i ô
, .
(14)
One issup raised on appdal wqs procedurall#':. .:,,ljy:
.
.. ? : .
, ,' .
).
,
,
.

.

,

. . ..

.

defaulted due to counsel 's exror ;

- ,

,

.

..

.

.

. z.

..
'.
: ' ., . .
:'
c
'
,. ..
.
. .
.1

,

: ..-.E '-:..
. ;;,j..z,, .
; ' . .

. . ..:jr.l;. .;
ë . ' . .. '',
; '
. . .
;i, '... .)y!:. . ;;,
.',. ., . .'.)
,
:
$
.
.

J

:'

.

. ,a
. ,

.

.

.

.
'
;

. t,. 2 .,
;. . ..
: ; r,
,

.,;
;:
.'

( ) Counsel failed to investigate potentialy i
15
t tnesses( '''':i.
,
w
. . ït
t
and instead had the court appoint a Private inv àyyga ys,yy ,,,y,,
, t:
y
.r . . y
,
, ,
.

who did little or nothing to inveàtigate :the . ' i j j; r . k y
,
'
qlse
y . . .. . g
. . ; .
,
q, g J
y( , .:y (; .,jy. . . ,
.2
.
. , . ., .q,' t
, ,

'.

..
.. :

,

:J,:.1. ,:. . . 1. :
:'. J. : . . . .r .
.;
'. (
:

. '....
: .
.
.

.

.

(16) Counsel stated that they were ovérloaded with ce es' ' ,I .'
l :'' :
..f. '
.

and cou ld not conduct a proper investigation ; beçause ofi'' ' . ''''
L.
'
' '
t .
,
this and because petitioner 's alibi witnqss wasqRillèd,è.. . . '::
(
,,
:
''
! ' ;'
J
'
petitioner was deprived of a defense;
' u, . '''' CJ 2'- 2t:.:). .
.
, 'v.4
'/
.' :, %
,
f1
.)
.
,) 7. .' .r.. '
.'L, :) j. '
.
); .
( j
.

. ..

.

'

.

..
.

'

.

.
,

'

(17) Counsel refused to allow petitioner to teytify ' , , :
in .
(
his ou defense after the jury had been infom pd of lis '::..
i ' '
5
y
prior cpim inal record .
'.

2

:

'' '
t , . , f .y
'
J'
.
v
.
y.'j,.,'. ;, ; ,p '' y
'- .S.,.. . . .. .'j
a r
, 7' y
.
.
.

' ' .

-

.
Respondents , through counsel , have filed . motioq %o dispiss..',:
r ''l :
:: '
'
a
..
.m . .
b:l'. '2 .' i);1'
t =.
.
S
, ' ;
k .'t':.y. :.;
' '21-. -, .,'
:j.'.gk .). ...,:
. ',?. .
4u&., .
'y , '
L
r.l. 7'' . ' .,.j.
,
x
;,.. ,
j.
:
..
,
3
'' i
' :- ,;
.',. î
;':
:- '
' .' . .

' .

,

'

.

.

.
.

.

..

.

'

.

.'

.

.,

.

L .,.
;.

..
'
:

'.

:L' ).'.
f ?' ,
. '
.
l..:.'':
J-t . .
: 1 :,
'
' .
.
,

. ' . .. '

(

.
.,

.

'

J :.c.:g
.

. . . ..
.

,

.

' ..

;',
;

' ,
. . ' ,t .,

4.,
.4
,,
.
.). ' 'g't.
. ., ,.'
' .
.
.. . ., ...)',.
..k :(..r
j,:.j.
y.
j
'
.
;,.
l . . . . ;!
.
. ;' ' ' ' . . '' .. .. y
.( .)
. '
..

.

.

' -,,

.
.
,.

.,

.

.:

.
.

j
(J ;.',r...i..:ï
. ' ï. '.' ' ' '(
t f' . .: '
'
. . . j
. .
)l
'
' . S ' '.
;
''
'
. . ' - ..
the petition , supported by the rlcord of petitioner 1s 'state triql
r .
: :.
!z' : ,'êè
,, : p 2 '
,
;
%
:
.

.

, .

.

'

.

.

'

proceedings .

.

Pursuant

,

j),. ) : . ..,
. . . 1q,
'. ;
. :
.
,
' JI,
(
..
2
x , .. .i,.
t
:
the ..,,,,st t..g,ardi. . '.!..::,
,';' tand
'
,,
. v. . .
: .
..
.t r:' .
. :
.
.
. j...
i .
. ;
: r
.

.
.
'
k .. .... .., : . .:
,

and post-conviction

.

. '
.

.

'

.
.

to

established by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appqals , , his C QB rt. ' . ';'''
' : ': :1
1
%
(
,
ë'
t: . . : . :
;
.
.
.

'

,

.

-.

-

;

.

.. .. . :
.
.
'
' ''t .
.

'
.
'
!
.

.i .
'
Roseboro ' V .'.L.

' L.
.
g:. ' .'t
:. : ,
- .
'
lj
g
y ,, . . , .;j ..,r .. . . ..j ,) )
.
. .. :. . (
.
,

X0Yified Yhe Petitioner Of reBpondent: # motion @
. .

j . .,: j g.y. : ,,. i.
z : ,t
,
,. t
,
.

,

, .

.

..

, .
.

.

.
.

Garrison, 528 F .2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). Petitioner was1 ;'- ';' ::..!l .k? ! .;l' .
L ,, ï,:
'.
'qiven 'ahl
'
.
.
,
T ;
J
::
':
c. . .
,
:
;,
.
r
k , , . j
.
opportunzty to submzt counter-a,zzdavzts or other rezevqaE, w zaqzce,. , . . ..
I

-

t

'
,
.. ..

.

.

'

s
.

.,

,

.

.
.
-. . .

.
,.

.,

, .

,

. .

.

,
. .'.!'..'' . -,.-,:,.' . :.1
..-h' '' .'.t<..' ..- . . .. '' ! .:.
?! . : :'
:
'&
'
.' . '
).
)
y
contradicting, explaining, or avoiding respondents' :. :
qvidençe.: )-,. :,F:.
,?:),@ .r.,
' ..t
-.ë
.
(ç , ).
.
,
''

.

.

. -

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

,
.

. .

.

-.
:

.

.
.
.,
, . . ,..

.

:-.,

:
:

' ditionally , petitionek was warned that a failure 'p''r . . - )ir,:,*CL ;
M
* 'reàpopd ; $.E,. J7 .
. ' ë: ' :) '
'lJ
:
. .JI ' :
.

, .

'

.

.

..

.
..
.a .
,

..

;) : r ,
. j
.

might, if appropraate, result in judgment for the respondents:': .: f.. '
i
.
è,g: . ' )
:
(
i

' '.. :
): ?,.
)' . .
:
.:

7'. .
''

. .

,
.

,

'.
..

,'.;
....
.
i

Petitioner has responded ; therefore , this action is ,ripe ' or thisl,'z1'' ;:E
f
;,; :.
' y
7
'
>'
1 :
:
.
. **
,
:t' .
.

..
.
,

-

.
) . . ..
,y
2

,

Court 's consideration .

.
! ,:

';

'

' :'1
.:

,

.

,

.
2

,, '
q

ll '
t .
.. .

y'
'.
)k
j

.
,

.

..'

'' .

(
L.
.

t ' )E
)
!!

.:,,5. -.' .$j ..(....
.( ' -f : . , .' ï
,
'
-

Petitioner di
rectl appeal his convi : to th: Vi<gini , , '
y
ed
ction J ' -' :,' ': sj
,
'
(1
.
'

.

x

' '
v

..

'.
.

y,
l
;

,

,

'

. .'.

court of Appeals, raising two grounds: (1) that he wasl,.tried: .i:,
', r
,
.
,
.
.

.,
'

.
. .:

'
.

.
.

.

.
: .. 7 '

. .

.

(
;

Violation of his right to a s
peedy trial; and' ( )'l.' '. - .
' 2 .thqt thé'
)
'
)
'

.

disclosute

of

his

prior

crO inal

. : .,t
.
J
.

.

, .

.
.
to the . jury. ':,was')
..
. ' .' !:
.
'
L

.

.

.

,
- ..). ..
t: &

:

.

record

-.

.

'

.'. ;
. .
,

,

.

,

).. ;: ,. .' j. .
;.: , . . j. t
. y ) x ..
:.

Prejudicial. The Court of Appeals denied the appeal pp dlaim ç (l);
.
.

:

. ..

' 'r .. '?
i: .
*
.

..

.

.' )f''
' ,J'

;:
.
k

y
and grantëd the appeal as to claim (2). gy It thep'qffjy .; g . tth@il
.
. i4ppd.y; : ( .
. ,y
.,
; . ,.
( .,
,g.
(i
:.. . j .
.
y
;.j
conviction , tuling that the '
j
.
:
.
second ground was procedurafl , .
y.barredy,
,

t .

.. '
,.

.

.

,

.,.. . , .,
,

.

.

,

j

: ...
( ..
2

.

for

failure to

follow

the

. . .( ;
. .

ipn k ! s
contemporanvoùs obaeqt-' k ' ( mJle' .
i
: ' u
z
:
' '.
.
:
'

.

.

,

'

,

r: r
ê.

' .- :

.

,
.

Petitioner then appealed to the Virginia Supreme Coprtz raiàinq' i .
' ' 'ZZW' the 4
'
i
'
'

.

-

'

'
'

'

'

'

.
: . ;'.
,

: g. .

sa claims. That court ref
me
used the a
ppeal, finding grouhdi.('):i '(
) j
:
. '
'
t ' ' Jt ) ùo'
.. j . ,' u .
% 1 X 2 . v'
. .
t
' .
. '..
.

.
;

J procedurally barred under Rule 5:15* and citing Hàrris v . Reedq'
be
'

.

'

.

4 89 U . S . 255 ( 89).
19

2
.

.
.
' . ''

;.

..

q.. .
*:,
'': '
'
:.
k .
' .
2.
.

'!
)
:

, .

Under Rule 5:25 of the Virginia Supfeme Court '
7
'
kules# a:
'
must be lodged by a defpndqht dt trial
contemporaneous objdctiop
in order to preserve the issûe for review by thq! Supremeè court é
X
'
absent a show ing of good C ZY SO .
''
'
1' '
.'
-

4

'

'
'

''

'

.. ,
.,
.. ,
.
.t

'

.
)

J
!
'

'
'*

'

.

:

.*
. .'
.

.
.
.

1
.

''

Petitioner then filed a petition for a writ qf . habqlslcgNpqs
z
v:
'
.

.

.

'
. .....:1 '.
(.''. .r..' ' : , .,''
. ; ,.) . .
j
, @
,
.
'

' .

.

in the virginia sppreme dourt, raising essentially the samë:. . ' .
claims
.
.
.
..

.

..

,
..

. .
. .

i
.

''

r

.

.)

' .

,è

that he brings in the instant petition. However, he 4ppeqrqd tQ
1'
'
'
' ..
'

.

.

'. ;
.. .; '' ' ... !t:':
. : ( ..
. )

.
.

:
.
.

.

'
'

'

.

raise only the following issues regarding his claim that he was'.'
)
.
.. .

.

denied the effêctive assistance of counsel :

. .'

k .r
.
,

.

è
.

.. . .

:

,

' .' '

N. Petitioner was denied the effecti#e assistapcè of couns#l
.

in that :

. .

.

.

.

,

'

'(

.

. .''' .',
:.
'
'
'

.

:.
: $ '., '
'
.
.' .'.
.
'
. ''
'
'

.

; .: .': :
f '

.
.

.

(l) Counsel were well avare of the erfors previbusly

cited in the habeas petition and Fere bou/d t9 appeqli
:
basêd op

(2)

khose errors;

é'.,'. .'. .èèî '
:';t . . '
'' ) r
:

'

.

.

Copnsel did not give petitioner a copy 'of Ehe

P etition for appeal;

'

.

.

. è
'
:,.
t

t.
.

.

.

'
,

.

.

(3) Coùnsel refused to investigate witnessès, relying

instead on a private investigator who did '( little ' or '
'
t
,
nothing ;
'
!' . :
,
l' .
'
.

''
.

.

.

(4)

. . .

.
.

'
.

...' '
. ' :

'
.

.

Petitioner's alibi witness had been kilied '
and

counsel was overloaded with
petitioner:w ith no defense .

other

.

'

,. ,'
. .

--

.

.

.

'

-

s

'

k

claims ( through ( were barred by the rule in Slavton v. :
A)
M)
'.
.
.
.

'

'
'' .
.
'
'''

'
'

.

'.
'.

.

'

'

.

Parrilan, 215 Va' 27' 205 S. .2d 680 (1974). The cpurt qlso found'(
. ,
E
2
'
:
s
.

.

thàt

.

.. ,
' . ''
.

-

L

'

' '
. .

j .. . ,. .
, .
'

.

claims (
N)(3) and (
N)(4) were barred by the rule in ,-Penn : @
v.:
.
k
'
)
.

Smvth, l88 Va. 367, 49 S.E.2d 600 (1948).

. ,

,

'
.. .

' '
.

..

.

The other dllegations

were found to be without merit .

Where a state prisoner fails to comply with a state prpcedpral
:
:'
.

.

.
. .

.

rule, which failure providês an adequate and indepenqent round Tor
the state 's denial of relief, federal review will also be barred
: . '' ; '
'

'.

.

2

.

'
.

.i
;
,

.
;
!

.

Under this rule, state habeas review is bakred '
by the

failure to raise the issue at trial and on direct appeal .

:

'

Under Penn v. S h, a habeas corpus petition ppst àllegey
Mvt
'

facts ; m ere cohclusiqns ok opinions will not suffice . : .' ,.:' :
'

,

.. .

5

h

g. . .
.f .

:
:

.
.

.

'

. e
.

The Virginia Suprem: Court dismissed the petition, fiùding that

.

s

. . : .. .

cases # 1'
.
l:aving : :
?'
:
. .
,
' '
.

ê,. ''

' ..

.

:

.

'

where the state court has expresàly relied on the procedural

default , absent a show ing of either cause for the default and

resuztzng prejudzce or actuaz znnocqnce. Harrzs v. Reed, 4a9 u.s.

255 (1989): Wainw/icht v. Svkes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977). '
'
Cause'
'
turn on a show ing of a denial of the effective assistance of
counsel, a factor external to the defense which impeded dompliance
w ith the procedural rule , or a novel dlaim . Murrav v . Carrier , 477
.

ë

.

U.s. 478 (1986). To establish '
'
prejudice,' Vhe petitigner must
'
r

.

.

';
'

'

,.

show that errorg worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage,
.

'

.

.

.

infecting the entire trial w ith errors of constitutional maqhitude .
.

''
'.''

.

'

.

: ..
.

.- .
.
.

Id *

.

l

.j
'

.
.,

j
.

.

'' ,
'
.

,.

The Virginiq Supreme Court ' application Qf the rul: in Penn ;
s
v . Smyth , supra , may constitute a valid procèdural bar if ) .finding . . .
@
.
r
.
.
.
.

'
.

..

:
.
y

'

.

--a-- eh- --z- z- s---a -- -d-q-- --a z-d-p--a--. -t-t-,
.:---ua-.
. ., ' u .

.

.

. . -i

,

See Smart v . Scullv, 797 F.2d 8l6 (2d Cir. 1986). Iq this càse,
v
(' ' ' y ' . .
' .
.
.l
the Virginia Supreme Court gave petitioner the opportunity Eo amend
.

'

.

.

.

,

,

his petition to particularize his alleqations nlmhpred (
l
N)(3) and
. ..

..

'

..

. . .).
' .

( 4) in his state peti
&)4
tion4 petiti
;
oner did not do s a iie
o, pd
court then found his claims to be barred. Accordingly, this Cgurt

concludes the application of this bar rested on independpnt and
adequdte state grounds and that federal review of petitioner 's

current claits (
N)(l5) and (
N)(l6) is likewise #rocpdurally barred.
The V irginia Supreme Court found that habeas corpus re# iew of

petitioner's claims (
A) through ( was barred because he had
M)
4 Claims (
N)(3) and (
N)(4) of the state petition ate the same
'
as claims (
N)(15) and (
N)(l6) of the instant petition.
'
6

.

.

'

failed to raise these issues dt trial and/or on direct appeal. A

findinè by the Vixginia S
upreme Court of a procedural bar under
Slavton v . Parrigan , supra, is entitled to a presumption of

correctne:s in this Court. Clanton v. Muncv, 845 F.2d 1238 (4Eh
Cir . 19881.

Petitioner now alleqes, however , that he should be

excused from the procedural bar of claims ( through ( beéause
A)
M)
counsel was ineffective in not raising at trial or on direct appeal

all of the issues subsequëntly found by the V irginia Supkeme Court
to be barred under Slavton .

In order to assert a claim of ineffecti#e aésistance of

counsel as cause for procedural default, the petitioner must first
have presented such claims to the state 's highest court .
v .

-

carrier , suora .

Murrav

In his state habeas petition , petitioner

asserted that counsel were well aware of the errors prev iously

cited in the habeas petition and were bound to appeal based on
those errors .

He did not éssert , however , that counsel was

ineffpctive for failing to follow the contemporaneous objection .
rule such as to Dreserve such issues for appeal.

.

.

'' ''
'' ''

'

The Court thus

'

concludes that petitioner has not given the state courts the
.

'

.' '

'

'' '

opportunity to rule on his claim of counsel' ineffectiveness for
s

failing to follpw the contemporaneous objection rule concerning the
substantive issues raised in his habeas petition .
In order to give state courts the opportunity to pass on the
'

'

.

,

constitutionality of their criminal convictiohs , a federal court s

should dismiss without prejudice a state prisoner's petition for
habeas corpus relief if it appears that the petitioner has not
J

t

7

ekhausted his available siate retedies. Preiser v. Rodricu:z, 4ll

U.
S. 475 (1973).

1

However, even where a petitioner has not

Presenied his cla- s to the highest court of Ehe state i which he
n
was convictod, if it is clear that the state' law would bar state
s
review , exhaustion

precluded.

is not required, and

federal review

is

Teacue v. Lane, 489 U. . 288 (1989); BaS
ssette- v.

Thon son, jl5 F . 932 (
m
2d
4th Cir. 1990). In this case, it is clear
that if petitioner were now to bring these claim s before the

vir4inla suprete court, thev would be barred under virqinia Code
,

' 8.01-654( (2) .
5
B) 5

.
;

'

Accordingly, the Court conclMdes that
;' :

,'
.g
.

.
.

petitioner haé not Jxhausted his èlaim that ineffective assistance
e
'
''
'
'

.

of counsel constituted cause for his procedural default. In'other
(

'
.

.

words, petitionek's claims ( through ( are:'
A)
M)
'doubly '
dqfaultedy'
'
'

'.

.

and federal reviek is preclpded . see Jpstus v . Murrav , 897' F.2d
q
'.
'

7Q9 (4th Cir. 1990).

'
.>

,'
. . ' ;.

q
)

.

:
'

Petitioner brinqs several other claims that he did noi present
/:
-

.
.

.

. .

ë.:.
.:
,

to the Virginia Supreme Court in his state habvas corpus petition t-. (:
.
i
.
:,
'
.

.,

'

..

.,

. .

'

' ,

( ( ; ( ( , znsok as petz
: 1) x) a)
N)
ar
tzoner azzeqes that coun. fail
pl
ed ,'
k:
,
:
-

'

.

'J

to object to the Cotmonwealth's failure to disclose excùlpatory

e dence; tha part of ( 3) asserting that counsel lail to
vi
t
N)(
ld
object to the use of perjured xestimony; (
t
N)(6)y to the extent
petitioner claims that counsel failed to purgue the spé#dy trial

issûe at trial, (
N)(8); (
N)(9); (
N)(10); (
N)(1l); (N)(12), to the
S Under this rule , the failuke to include in thè first state
habeas petition allegations the facts of which were known to

'

'

petitioner, precludes a gkant of relief o: those allegations in a
later state petition , and thus constituteé procedural default .
8

.

.

. .

'

.

'

,
.
.

.

.

'

%
'

'

2
.

'

.

.
.

.

'

'

--

.

.

.

s

.

., .
' ,. . .
.

.
,

'

'

.

.

1

.

.

.
1,.

.

r

,

.

'.

( )

,

.

'$
.

.. ,
'

..
.

.

.

'

é. . ..
:
.
- -- - - - - .
- - -. . '.. . ..: ;. t JJ
., - ' . , .'.' ': ' ..
.:
'.
' . , 'j'
.
;
,
i d. j
;
'
i
y
. to '''''
jg; .g-,j ;,y...: - y.
:'. ujjji ,..,: , t.
Eju :jjj ,yx .-- ..
ir
ly
j
j:!q . : .( ;
kg '
,
'
' noted above , if :,
petitioner were now to attempt
pres z
.
'
'
'
'
' 1
). ' J
- ..
. .

.

.

.

t ..
; '

''
.

,

. . ,'

'
,

:
(

' '
,. .

.

' .

2
'

' z

.

F

. ..

l
!j
.
.

j .

#
-

.

.

I

'

.

- '

.

,
.

'

,

.. .
)
j'
q

. ) ... .
. j

.

..
.

g

.' ', . ' . '' . . :
.. .
.
-2

'

.

,
:

.. . . ..

'

.,

.

. '

.

r;..
..

t- .
'

..

.

, '. :
.

. .,
.

);'., z,''.. . -.: ; . .
.;,,. ',!,:.(
i,. . . rq
,;,
i.
)
'
)
.
.g
:
:

!. , . .
.. . '

, .

..

.

.

.
,( : , . .
CourtCçonçl/des
,. j g.
.
$l. ... ,,, ;.
g

)5
,
,
y
t
:, . : .. .y - ,. .
.

,

. .,

.. .
.

. . ii J
:' l
.

.

.

.

. '' ) '
'2
,
.

construinq the E tion liberal '
peti
ly, the

'

.. . .
.

.,' ., )' .
:. .
rr
g

.

.

,

' '. x
.

.

. - .
,

.

.
, .
.. ..

'
.

.
. ..

,

; . ., , ; yyy
. .
(,

.h@ir'E': ,y.:
t ( , .'.:(: . .or
,r,. ' ,'
r .; . .:
. ' .
: y ..
j
.
,

.

,
.

.

s

.

.

.

.
:

.

,

: '.: . :L . -.. -.
. t . - '.. è
. ., -:
.

: petitioner has exhausted his state remedies With C
,
vespqç: to the ( : ,
'

j.
.

' . .,
.
'
. ,,
,

iE . . ; - .
i' '' .
.
. ,

i

'
.

following

ineffective

ê'

'

. .

assistance

. .
'

of

.

' .

'
,
''.' ); . , .q ..
'y '..
)L .

.
j
.
-

;
:
c lai :,. N) 2) ' /l , :
ms t' ( ( z ..
,
.

counsel

.

'

.

' ,!t
.t $
.
'

;

,
'
,

.

',
.

.

.

..

- ..

::

.

. ..

. ' .
.

..

I, rùgarding counsel' fail
,
s
ure to raise the issue oh ,
appeafi'( ( iC'' , '
, N) 3) $@
''
!
'
:
.

,

.
I.
,

'

)
', .
.

.

:.,

1. '
'

(
.

.

'

'. .
'

-' .
,

.

'

I
; ..
.:
,

I
.
:
:

.

''

'7 .
.'

.
.

l

,

::

.

.

.

.'
..

did

:

.

.
l

.

'.
.
.

.

':

.

. .
.

.

.
.
.

' .

.

.

.

'

(

'
.

ê

..

- .

.
. . .
t.. : , . , 2

.:

.

.

., ,

,

.

'

,

;

' '

.

.
'

.

'

.

.

.

y

'

..

'.

.
;

.

, .. .
.

J

:
;, ,

.

,.

.

.

k ..

.

. .

. ..

result

'

.

.

.

'.

.

.

.

.:
'

.

that bvt for counsel 's unprofessional .
eryors , '
the
:.
.
:
.

, . .

'

of the proceeding would have ' een
b
''

different .'
'

.

.

.

J

z.
..
,

,è . . -

.

. . .

,

'

Id . :
:

.

.
.

..

.

. .,

.

.'
.

.

.

donfidence in theI outcome' of the proceeding. Id . If i: .; clpar
'
) is .

:.
.

, ,

.,

L

-

.

..
.

4

.

.F
qC
K
#

.

.

.

.

,

.

s.

.

. .

.

, .

.

:

.

'

&'
.

.

),

..

.

. .
.
'

.
,

.

'

.

l

'

.

.)
.
r
;
!
:.

a.
.
.

,

.

.
.

' .

'.

.

,

:
'

'' '

j,. ,; .
.
.

ê'
'

' f ::

.,

.

,

.,
'

)

Second, petitioner: '
'
must show that '
there is a keasonàble ,' .7' !f
:' . ''
.
.
:
.

.,

.

.

,

.

,

falls within the wide range of reasonable professi6nal assistance.

.

.

,

. I2 . ., '' ') ' ) 'r
,
.
:
a. '
'
.

*
'

-:
. .
,

.

:.

.

Counsël's perfom ance must have been so eqreqious as to 'qndem ine ':' C
'
.
i

'
$

.

.

. .

.

.

.

.

: ;,'

'
,

' .. ,'
'

the , dequate
a

.

: probability
.
,

: .

.

.

.
J '' ''' 6' '' . '
'
' ' '
'.
'
' . . ''.
' '
.

'

7
-

not receive

.

'

.

Id .

.

.

petitioner

.

'.
'

'
.

'

' i'

(
.'
'
.
.

'

'

....
.

..
.

' .;' .'..
'.

..

. ,

. ..
.

(. ...
. ,

'.'
..
.

.

. '
.

that

..

'

.'

. .'

,
. -.

.

perfom ance . There is a strong presumption that counsel ' conduct '
s

'.

J

.

,

,

',

. ''

!.
.

'

that counsel' repres
s
enta
tion fell below an objecti . rqasona
vely y
ile
j
j

.

'

.

.

.

prove

. ..

.,

')

' r
'

Strickland v . Washincton. 466 U . . 668 (1984).. Firgt, he must .
S
show ' . ;. ' .'
'
.
.
)
.
.

. .

..

..

'.
J

'

.

'

z ,

. .

.

. ..
. è

,

.
.

.

:

To

..
,

'

'

.
.

z
,

.,

'

.

:' ss s n e . c u el, p i on r mus s t é a t . pr . g te)t. .
,a i ta c of o ns
et.ti e
t a is y .wo- -dn s'
.
.
.

.
. .
.

.

. .
. ,

i aiiecaLïons .

.

..

- . !
1

.
.

:

'

'

.

'

.
'

;y
,
.

.

: ;
.

.
.

.

.

)

. .
,

.
'

.

.

t.

.

' 'to appeal . Accordingly , the Court may examine the àt
exits o f thqse . (: ,:
,,
L
.

) : ' q. .
. .
+

.

.

.

.

.
) (

.

.

,

r.. :
':

. F .j
. ,
( L: ( ),,rpgar diq* 'y)),.' :':,:
N) 6
g .. . , '):
)'
''
.
%', ). : :-.'- j
A; ', .
'

'

.

.

' .

' ' . ..

p
'.

.

.

'

-

.

.

,

. ..

, .

:

j.
J
'
è
.

.

iregarding the fail
ure to a
ppeal; ( ( ); ( ( )#
N) 4
N) 5
.
,
J J 'j
!
' .:( '.' ( . : . .
''
:
:.( ' the failur: to appeal; ( (7), and ( (12)# Negarding tie'failure .: : . . :
N)
N)
'j '
.
)
.

'

.
.

l

.
'
.

,
.
u y. . . .
.

E

v

;

.

1

.
'

.

.

. .

.. . . . . .
.
. .

, I, .
7,
'

'

'

,

:

.

.

.

.

.

.

't,
..

g
)

.,
.

' .

)

. .
; ' ..
they would be barred under virginia code s .8.
( . à':. ..,i,s
..
. 01-654(
. B) 2).ê.
.
.
. '. , . :. ' L ' :.j.
'
;(.( .', ..,...(, u; ,.
,,
.;
.( .:,..2. .
'. . . ' 2
.
.
.
. Accordinqly , these claO s must also be dismisg
pd. See Teacué v .'' ' î
:.
.

'.

:

7
.
' '. : 1' . .
' . ; ':'
'
.
.
),. . , ' . .j
.. , ' :.'
>'
$i
peAitipn ,
'.
'

v
. .. Lane , suora ; Bassette ' . Thomoson ,, supra .
..
L

.

'.. , ,
7: (

!

'.

claims to the Virginia Supreme Court in a second .hàbeqs

.

'

.

:

.

,

'
'
':
.
. . . ..
.
:
'
.
. ,
:g

j.
'7
k
(

'

. .r ' '.
. .
è

; .
I
''

''
k

.J .
. .
7

.

.

r . ..
..
,

..
..,,
,
.' '
. .

.,
.

.

'

.

t

,

..

.

,

. .. .

r

of the indictments at trial; ( (13); ( (14); ahd ( (ja). ,xs
N)
. N)
N) '
.

.

.

. .-

extent he alleqes that counsel failed to challenge the sùfficiençy
.

..

. .

' ,:
: -.

'

. '

. ..',.
. ...
:;:
. .
.. . . .'-.
.- r v . .,
L .
.
,

'

., . .?
.
. .!

. .
, .

.

. ,

...: - . .
. . ,
s

.'

.

.

, .

-

).! . .è J.'.
.:
..
.
:
.
î y..
. ,:
,r
:

.

.

.

.. .
g
.

.
.

.

,

.

..
.,

(
.-

.

r.
.
,

.

: ,
,

.

..

.

.

.

. r' .
..

'

'

'

.

.. ( .
- .
,
..
;

:

.

,

'

. .: .

.j .

. .

..
,

.' .,' '' . . '
' ' .. . .1 L .. l .
.j
j..
..
.
J
'
;.(
.

J.

'

'

.. ,
.

:

$
:

. '

'

''

'

.,

)

'

.

; .:; :. :
. .
:

. ,.

. .

.
..
'

,(. .. y y.:. g ;.. j'y..:,;.j.
j
y.
r
.
.s, , l'5 . ...g.j;.,,'.j
.g, . (,
'. : i:
'
y
,
p ,.... .,j.
i
g
.yy ) '
.. y
.

i .. . .-1.q. q '; ,.'
:, ... .,.'
à '. .
,. '
i
j

.

..

,

'

) l.). - y ... -...)
.$ .., . ,ï '
. ::. . .,...
/;
,
.
,
. . . ,. . . ;
j

'
..

.

.. .

..

that no preq
udice resulted f m Ehe all
ro
eged errov,'it/t iot. '.,. .èr
tis n r . .k .,
y
i
:
,
.
:
?
( t
)
.

.
. . .
.
.

; .. .
.

,

''

,

.

.

j

'

.

.

.

l

.

.1 . . ,., ' j :, , , , .. ,
;
y
. ;: 1
, . .
,
. .
.
.- .
.

necessary to inqvire whether such error constituEed inqdequàt'
e

,

.

.
,

.

.

.,

'

,. .
.

.
.

.,

..

l...
,

.

.

.
''
(: . . '. i.'' . '' ' . .: .,.. :L :'
.'' è < . .;
:
2
E . '
t
. . .
'
'
?
' . :.
'.. !' .,-;i-:. ( '.'.. J. - .'.. ---'-. ,..' .
)' ;' - :.. '
'- : .'. 1..
:
..
@
.
.
.
.y,
..
,
.
g. ,,L.j kj . ';y ...g.., .y,
j
y
y;
(
g. ..., .
y
.
. , t;
.
.. . . : ' .
J

.

t
'

..

.

) .
. .

representation .

:
:
.

.

.

.

.Id .

.

.
.

''t'.
).

.

.,
,,

.

'.

,

i ,' .

j. y
..
. , ... . ... ,t
.
'
'

f'
.
:
,

.
.

.

.

. '

.
'

,

. ,.

. , . .' .J ( ,. '
. :.
..
,.
i: g. , 'y,'.:... . : .
.
I . . . k
t
.

In determininq whether petitiopdr w @s

,.
.

.
r

ptejudiced by particular errors, the court must consi2
,
der tthe'.. ''''
r . , .'
.
.

1
L
) . ' . , . ' . ' ..
'
z '
,
,
'

.

.

.

;.

, ,

totali of the evidence before the fagtfinder . I
ty
d.

''

'
:
j

.

:k, , .

' .
.

,

.

.,

In the pxhaupted portions of claims ( (2),' ( ' (3), .E N)(6),. . .' :
N)
N) : '' (
,,
i
.
.
.
.
!
. .
.
j )(
. ,
.
and ( (12)# petitioner asserts that counsel was xneffecfive for q'? ''
N)
i
.C' '
,
.
. .

e

failing to appeal J
certain iséues .

Petitioner has qlso stlted :hat

.
.

.

.

'

,

''

' .
I
. J
.

'

'

.

.

.

.:
'i. ' ' ' J '
.
'
. .. ' ''' 1 '
' .
'. '
.
. .' .
'

'

cdunsel failed to raise such issues at trial. ' counsel had
If
:

:,

,.

.

.

(
.

:

ralsed these issues on apoeal, it is clear Ehat thev woùld have '...'.
;' (
e* e'
' '
'
.
! *
'
e ' .z
:
l
' '

.

.

.

. .

.

,

.

,

been barred

kor
i

.

). .

..
,

failure tp comply with the lçontempbraneou: , ''''.:.
.
.
:
.,

,

.
.,.

'

.

:

'' '
:

.

. '
'
.

.
.. .

..

.

. '.
.' l
.
.

,.

.
.

.I

. ..

,j
;

,,

,

objection rule. l
Accordingly, there can have bepn po pkejudice: i , '
.

.

.

.

.

;

' ..
'

rpsulting from coûnsel 's alleged failurë to rqise rthese fApsues on
'
( .
.

.
.

,

appeal .

.

.

, ,.
:
#
g

.

j .

zy

,

See Strickland v . Washinqton, supra .

Petitioner

alleges

in

claim

, .,

( 4) that
N)(

.

,

.

,
.

j
(
)

. ,y
.

was

J ,

'T
!.

.

Attorney bl
urted out in the #resence öf the j
ury
.

-

.
.

.

''

. ..
.
,

'

'

.

'

J

'' .
.'

.. ' .
.

.

.

.
j
)
'
that)'def ' .
' enpe
.
'
.. 1
.
:
.

.

.

j

ineffective for failing' to appeal the fact thqt the:.Commonwealth 's
-'
'
''''
*'
'
'
t
.

: , ,, .
y. .
; .
,

r . :.
' '

.

.

j. .
..

.

: )

,.
g
.

;
:
.,

.
1

r
.

' '.

.

'

'

..
.

counsel had tampeped w ith tape recordings of conversations held ' :x
i J
'
-' '
'
.

y

.

couasel

.

i

.. . ,

.

,.

'

.

:. '
.
;

bvtween the petitioner and an investigatin: , fidèr . While the . .t
of
'
.

'
. . .

'

'
.

J
.

'

.

Commonwealth 's Attornev ' remark mav have been impm per, it was aoE .
s
*
*
'
5'
'.
'
.
'

.

.

.1:
y

.

'

,

.

,)
J

'.

.

. :

,. .
' .

'.

so egregious as to unfairlv taint the eDroceedinqs'. Accprdinqlv . J :. ,
*
œ
R -* *
'
. ) ..
..j
-''
!
''
.
., './:
'
'
.

. ' '

'

.

,

,

,

. .

..

. .

..

'

.

flilure to raisl this claim on appeal .

'
.

.

'
'

'

),
'

.
.,

. .
.
'

.

y.
.

''

.'

.

.

:

'

J .
.

.

r

:.,

, ;

.

.

'J
1
;.
.
.

.

'

.

t9
. J'
.
.

.

'

. .,

.
.

'. ' .-. .
. .L
: . u. . .. ' ,.:..
y

raise

on

..

appeal

the

j..
.

.

.

.

'

.
'.

:
L
'

:;.
J

:
.

,

t.
''
.

,

Attorney (' Jimproper'c L ,. :J
s .l
'
; ' '.
,
)
' l
'
'
, -j .. ,:T.
.j
:.' > ).. . .
e k .ij . ) .. ,' r .... ; (.
.
)
; . '.,
j
.

Commonwealth '
s

.

,

'

..

statements in closing argu
ment. Specificall peEitiopàl stqtqsï
y,

.

'

.

Petitioner n:xt alleges, in claim ( (5), that'cpunsél' failed,c., ..-'.
N) ' ' . ' . . .(.. -. -. ': ':,:
' '
.'
t
g
. ;.'
'y

ç ..

.

y

.

'

.

.
,

.

.

.

j

.
,

.

.

.

the Court concludes that .
Detitioner was not preludioed bv cpun#èl 's
.
..
.
.
,
j

'

'

.

'

,

-

'

.

'

,

.

,

:-:
1d'
Lt
.E
l

. .

,

k:, j.( , .kr' . :j..;, 1,.'. '
J , .2:t-. . '- '. z . L .
/.
.
;' g
:
.
. t gF,
. ;t ,
; ,
; . ,.. .. g.
)
. y
y , ,.
,
j: . : .y.. ?:. . ,-r. . ( .
;
v . ,j .
kj
,
.', . . . . ,
;
.
'
'
.

; .. .

.

,
.

'

.

! .' . . .;-... :
. ' ,l ':
'
.
l

'

'
-

.

,

. .
.. . .

'

'

. .

.

.

.

.

. .

. .

,

''

'
.

'

'

i.. . . '1' .' J : 'u ' ''
.f . . .'
. ; ''
. '.
I .
i.

,

'

.

.

.

.

yv ''.j.'. . .. . .. v. ' .
.
.': ' q: ' :
:d.
:
.
.. .
. . .
s '
.
..
.
.

. ..

.

'

t
;
)

.

)

.

'

.' '
.
(' . ' ; u
,
v
'f .

. ,

'

'

;.
.
'

'
.

:

(
.
)
.

.

@)
: , '.
' '*

j.
.

.
.

..',')'
' '.
.. ' .

.'
..

'

.

:

. ( ;, . . : . ..
y
.
. .

.
.

.

. ..
,

...

'.
.

'
.

.

.
.

.

l

. ..

.
.

.

.

.

.
v

.

.

' '
' .

,. .
.

.,
.
'
.

.
' .

. e

.

--

'

(
.
j

., .
.

1 '

.

.q

. .

.

.

. .

.

:,

.

u . .
, ,.

.

.
j

.

,

..

..
.

not need to prove motive or when, where , or now tne)ë ; muTdeN. .,
)
,
:.
.
. jJ.
.
! .
;
!, ,

.
. ' .

.
.

.' . . ' -. . '
.
.

that the commonwèazth' Attorney argued that *he co
s
mmôp
keàlth did

..

.

'
i
'

.

.

.

'

.

.,

. '.
.

.

.

. . . :.

' a .. : -1t .
'
.
.
q
.
.
. )

:. .
D.
, ..
. ,

.

.
. '

.

.$ .

.

' ,
t
.
.

'

.

.

. ,
.
:
.
'

.'.

' '

.: ' ,. ''...à
. '
' . , '.
.
'
2.
'

..

'
2 Oçcurred . Absent Plain error # improper CIOSin; aFe Fqt'i# not :R q y. , j ..
.
' ; t':.,.j r. .
::)j .
:
;
.à .
.
( ;);
:(
,

.. ..

.

.

.

. .

.

..
.

,

.

.

,

. ,
. ,
.. .

.

,

.

. g:oùnd for reversal where the defendant has not objected M zd mpyed,'. ,. ... .'
2
) , ., .
.:
,
.'
.
.

.

. .

.

.

..

.
.

.. ,

..

: ..
r

. . ,
.
.

' . or a mistrial. United States v. Rocers, 853 F., )249 ( :,. . Cir,),. ,,,.'(j;.
,f
2d .y.. . ,4th : à..,.y . , .. ,.
.:. .
'
. .
.
.
.
.
) )
.

.

.

'

.

'

:

.

. .
.

:.: . ..

.

.

..

. .. . .
'.

'
- .. .

.

. '
t

.
'
.

.'
,.

, ' . ...
. '

,

..

.

.

' o .. ' '
.

..
.

.
.

.D :h ..'
.
... ' . '
u
.

' . '

..
.

.

.,
..

.
.

,

,

.

,

:.

. j .. .
;
.y
. s . . ,..

: : ..r;. .l: . ..
.
f
. ...

'
'

:
i
.

:.

', t:
,
.

onl that the componwealth di not need to prove .. ze'fok J : ' .T. . . .
y
d
a poti .
tie (n . .
.

. .

-

,
.

.
.

.

.

.

killing , even though there was ample evidence of a motive . l8% any
<
r
'
e
. .
.-

'''
''

.

'

' '

'

. .

'
,,

.

.,

:

,

'

''
'''

.

'.

.

. .r
y

J
q
,

rate '. even if the '
Commonwealth ' Attornev did make' ( . remarks pf, .. . ''. '
s
the
, '
F
.
'
'
.
. .
'
.

l

.
.
J .., . g .. . ' ;. .. .:,,''.'.
' .'
. .
.
' w j . . ..
. t
.
;
.
..
u . , :,J

.
'
.
,
, .
.

.

.

'
.

'

'

.

'

. ''

.

1 .
.

.

-

Attorney 's closing , argument, in which: the Coprt n9%@s i'herstatpik,: g', . : .
y, .l g.( d ;.y' ' , j
,y t. L (
-'
;
;., .
.. l
,

!
.

'

'

'

In this clsp, ' 'pecpkd ' '
the
'j
.

,

. .

)

..

.

.

.

. . .;
'
.

''

.

r@vealg that defeppe counsel did not object t9rthq'Cpo opwealth!s, . . , :'
o ,. .

.

' .
. .
:

.

cert. denied, 488 U. . 946, (1988).
s

.

.

.

.

.

; .'.. .,. ''jg
,E
' . . '
r
'

.,

.'

.
. ' . , .: . ..'. '. ,
..
C '
:.
.

which petitioner complains , there was no plain error :. in ViHginià, '.
'

'

.

,

.
r. .

.

,

.
,

,.j , . .. ,1 y
.,
. 2.. .
:
)
. .

.

;,r,
.'
.

..

'

. y . , .(.( ... :.y
.j
.
..
. g

zzr-. deqree m-rdex zs a .,zz,-z, dezz
, .
y ,
serate, sremedzEated kzzzzn., ; . .. ,
,
.

'

. .
'

.

.

.

.

'

. ... .'
. .
' .

'

,,

.
.'

'
.

1

''

'

'

l'

.

V irginia Code : 18 .2-32 , and it is true that the Commonwealth need

nQt prove motive or when, where, or how the muyder tpok place. The :
!
.

..
.

court thus concl
udes that couns was not ineffeciive for k
el
ailing
'
.
'

..''.'
.

.

to raise this issie on appeal.
e'

;

.

.

.

e
'
-

(, .
!
.

.

(
'

:

.

.' .
..

'

#inall peti
y,
tioner alleges that counsel wassineff
qcti f
ve 6r
failing to raise the insufficiency of the evidence on appeal . l
The
Court first notes'.'
that èounsel is not bound to appeal evety pon!
.
'''
' '
' '
' '
'' '
'
'
*
.

frivolous issue at the urging of the defendant . Jones v . Barnes,

463 U. 745 (
S.
1983). I this case, moreover, th@ record re
n
veals.
'

'

.

'

.

.

.

that there w as ample evidence to convict petitioner of the murder .
%
-- '

.
.

--

'

.

.

Petitioner was the owner 0$ the murdek weapon, and he later led
inveskigators to patt of this qun, which he had
.

.

'.
,
.
.

--

in

. .
'

:
.

çraveyard . Four w itnesses testified that petitioner
'

.

11

.
.

'

j '
.
J

ç

.N

.

'
%
'
.:
.

that the victim owed him money, and thkee witnésses
petitioner told them that he wanted to kill or hurt
Petitionet knew the whereabouts of the v ictim 's

police found it; only someone ihvolved in the

cguld

knokn that . And two w itnesses testified
to killing the victim , revealing knowledge
could have had .

Finding that there was

evidence to

convict the petitioner , the Court concludes that petitioner w as not

prejudicêd by counsel' failure to raise this issue on appeal.
s
In conclusion , the Court is of the opihion that petitioner is
not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and that the petition must

thùs be dismissed. An appropriate Order shall be entered this day .
The petitioner is advised that he may appeal this decision
'

q

pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 o f the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure by filing a notice of appeal with this Court within 30
days of the date of entry of this Order , or w ithin such extended

period as the Court may gkanE pursuant to Rule 4(a)(
5).
ENTER :

Ti
hs

z dy o 1 7 - - ,1 9 .
> a f - 'J
,
91
/.- . w. v .
p'
.
. 7
.
UNITED STATES DISTRIC

JUDGE

%
.

.

'gzr &..s Q m9rn* FM&= Ca
k .k E, .C z u .u F
-k Prx h. qq r-..at
x. . ,k 4 j* u
=: C
7
Jr n< . : .Qi*-' C ''X5
1 ke ' ' .PQe: w x.tz
. -.. R ''.2 x .I .Q
J f
> u
.
*I @ . . &
:
L
1'-'
l..E'
E'1'
;. ,
7'd
7
k. ' '
.
,'
:

D ==ITx G ,rn:
-. J t '- <
'
-

12