Moore v. Clark
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Thomas T. Cullen on 1/10/2022. (Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(aab)
Case 7:20-cv-00738-MFU-RSB Document 23 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 15 Pageid#: 206
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
JAMES TRAVIS MOORE,
HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Civil Action No. 7:20cv738
Hon. Thomas T. Cullen
United States District Judge
James Travis Moore (“Moore” or “Petitioner”), a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se,
filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2017
convictions for first-degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony based
on perceived ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The respondent, Harold W. Clarke, has
filed a motion to dismiss. As explained below, Moore has failed to establish a substantial claim,
as is required to overcome his failure to raise ineffective assistance of counsel in the Supreme
Court of Virginia. The court will therefore grant the motion to dismiss.
I. Factual Background and Procedural History
On July 17, 2014, Moore was arrested for the murder of Noel Navarro-Peña. Following
a preliminary hearing on March 20, 2015, the matter was certified to the grand jury. CCR at
23. 1 A grand jury later returned an indictment charging Moore with two counts of first-degree
murder and two counts of using a firearm in the commission of a felony. During a two-day
jury trial held in December 2016, the following evidence was presented. That evidence is
summarized in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party.
All citations to the Circuit Court Record of Commonwealth v. Moore, Nos. CR15-493 and CR15-494 (Henry
County Circuit Court), will be abbreviated “CCR,” using the page numbers in the lower right corner.
Case 7:20-cv-00738-MFU-RSB Document 23 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 15 Pageid#: 207
On June 27, 2014, a citizen discovered an abandoned pick-up truck partially off Daniel
Road in Henry County and notified police. A body was later discovered inside the cab.
Investigators identified the victim as Alfonso Navarro-Peña (“Alfonso”) and determined that
he had died from a single gunshot wound. CCR at 217.
Early the next morning, Gary Helmick drove into the Smith River Sports Complex in
Axton, Virginia, and discovered a body lying on the ground next to another pick-up truck.
This body—later identified as Noel Navarro-Peña (“Noel”), Alfonso’s younger brother—had
a gunshot wound in the chest and another in its head. CCR at 207. Helmick immediately called
the police. Video footage from a camera on a maintenance building near the entrance of the
Sports Complex showed a gray Toyota Camry entering the complex at 9:54 p.m. on June 27
and leaving at 9:57 p.m. Several days later, a grounds worker located an expended bullet near
where Helmick found Noel’s body.
The jury heard that, following the discovery of the Peña brothers’ bodies, police
interviewed Johnny Rivera-Olvera about the crimes because his phone number appeared in
the cell phones of both victims as one of their last phone calls. Olvera admitted at trial that he
made several different and conflicting statements to the officers about what happened. 2
Ultimately, however, Olvera identified “Travis” as the shooter. Olvera testified that he set up
meetings between Travis and each brother, ostensibly to repay money owed, and that he was
present when Travis shot each victim. Olvera did not know Travis’s last name, but told the
In one of the statements Olvera made to police, he said “I did it.” That information was not presented at
Case 7:20-cv-00738-MFU-RSB Document 23 Filed 01/10/22 Page 3 of 15 Pageid#: 208
officers where Travis lived. Later, he identified a photo of Moore as the person he knew as
Based on Olvera’s statements and Moore’s car appearing similar to the car in the video
at the Sports Complex, the jury heard that officers obtained a search warrant for Moore’s
home. Id. at 21. During execution of the warrant at Moore’s home on July 17, 2014, police
recovered a silver .38 caliber handgun loaded with five rounds of ammunition in a bedroom
dresser and a box of Remington .38 special cartridges (with four spent cartridge casings inside)
in another bedroom. Id. Moore acknowledged ownership of the gun and admitted that he and
Rivera-Olvera had driven to the Sports Complex on June 27, but he denied any involvement
in the murders. Id.
At trial, Olvera testified that he and Moore both sold drugs for the Peña brothers and
that they both owed the brothers money. According to Olvera, he owed Noel $1000 for a
personal loan, but Moore owed approximately $11,000 for drugs. According to Olvera, on the
morning of his death, Noel had asked Olvera to talk to Moore about his debt. When Olvera
did, Moore responded that he had $9500 that he could pay. Olvera testified that he then called
Noel and arranged for Moore to drop off the money. Trial Tr. at 264–268, Dec. 6, 2016 [ECF
No. 18-5]. Around 9:00 p.m. that evening, Moore picked Olvera up from his home, and they
drove towards Noel’s home in Moore’s gray Toyota Camry. Before they arrived, however,
Noel called Olvera and asked to meet them at the Sports Complex instead, which they did.
Noel was not there when they first arrived, so they went to a convenience store and returned
a short time later. Id. at 272–274.
Case 7:20-cv-00738-MFU-RSB Document 23 Filed 01/10/22 Page 4 of 15 Pageid#: 209
Olvera testified that when he and Moore returned, Noel was standing beside his red
truck, waiting. Moore got out of the car and told Noel that he wanted to talk about the money
he owed him. Olvera testified that after Moore got out of the car and approached Noel on
foot, Olvera moved over to the driver’s seat and drove further into the complex. As he did,
Olvera testified that he heard two or three gunshots coming from the direction where he had
left Moore and Noel. Olvera recalled that after he turned the car around and drove back
towards the two men, he saw Noel lying on the ground. Id. at 275–278. When Moore got back
in the car, Olvera noticed that he was holding a silver gun “similar to a .38.” Id. at 278. When
he asked Moore what happened, Olvera testified that Moore “told [him] that he had paid his
debt. And anyhow, [Moore] wasn’t going to permit people like [Noel] to harm his family.” Id.
at 279. According to Olvera, Moore then asked him to call Alfonso and set up a meeting with
him. Although Olvera testified that he did not want to arrange the meeting, he was scared that
Moore might shoot him if he did not cooperate. Id. at 280–281. He called Alfonso and
arranged for Moore to meet him behind an abandoned building near a junkyard. Id. at 282–
When Olvera and Moore got to the rendezvous point, Alfonso had not yet arrived; he
pulled in just a few moments later. Moore got out of the car, and Olvera testified that he heard
one gun shot. When Moore returned to the car, he was holding the same silver gun in his
hand. Moore told Olvera, “I knew what I had to do.” Id. at 286.
The medical examiner testified that Noel’s time of death was 10:25 p.m. Wendy
Gibson—from the Virginia Department of Forensic Science—testified that ballistics
comparison established that the bullet found in the Sports Complex had been fired from the
Case 7:20-cv-00738-MFU-RSB Document 23 Filed 01/10/22 Page 5 of 15 Pageid#: 210
.38 caliber handgun recovered from Moore’s dresser, as had the metal jacket surrounding the
bullet that had lodged in Noel’s head. No similar forensic evidence was available regarding
Alfonso’s death, nor was there any video evidence placing Moore’s car on Daniel Road where
Alfonso’s body was recovered.
Moore took the stand in his own defense. Consistent with his earlier statement to
police, Moore testified that he and Olvera had driven into the Sports Complex, but he denied
that he sold drugs for the Peña brothers and denied seeing either of them that night, much
less killing them.
After deliberations, the jury found Moore guilty of the first-degree murder of Noel
Navarro-Peña and use of a firearm in that crime, but it acquitted him of the charges related to
the murder of Alfonso Navarro-Peña. CCR at 479–482. The jury recommended the minimum
sentence of 20 years for the murder and the mandatory three years for use of a firearm.
Following consideration of a presentence report and evidence presented at a sentencing
hearing on March 1, 2017, the court sentenced Moore in accordance with the jury’s
recommendation—23 years imprisonment. The final Order was entered on April 3, 2017. CCR
Moore appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, arguing that the
evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; the court denied his appeal. Moore v.
Commonwealth, No. 0624-17-3 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 2017). The Supreme Court of Virginia
refused his petition on July 2, 2018. Moore v. Commonwealth, No. 171614 (Va. July 2, 2018).
Moore did not petition the United States Supreme Court for certiorari.
Case 7:20-cv-00738-MFU-RSB Document 23 Filed 01/10/22 Page 6 of 15 Pageid#: 211
On May 21, 2019, Moore filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme
Court of Virginia, alleging that the prosecutor had violated his Brady 3 rights by withholding
exculpatory evidence, including prior statements Olvera had made to investigators from the
Henry County Sheriff’s Office, agents from Homeland Security, and other inmates at the jail
that he shot one or both victims. Moore further alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to raise these alleged Brady violations. After the government filed a motion to
dismiss Moore’s state petition (accompanied by evidence that the material had, in fact, been
provided to defense counsel), Moore filed a motion on September 11, 2019, seeking leave to
amend his state habeas petition to add additional ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.
Moore asserted that he first learned that the Commonwealth Attorney had provided the
information to defense counsel when the Commonwealth responded to his state petition. The
court denied the motion to amend by order dated October 8, 2019. In an opinion dated July
7, 2020, the court dismissed Moore’s habeas petition, finding that no Brady violation had
occurred because the material had been provided to the defense. It based this conclusion on
the correspondence provided by the government and Moore’s counsel’s cross-examination of
Olvera regarding the content of those statements.
On November 12, 2020, Moore filed the current petition under § 2254, alleging that
his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to cross-examine Olvera about Olvera’s prior
statements that he “did it.”
In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant has a right to have
material, potentially favorable evidence in the prosecution’s possession disclosed to the defendant before trial.
Case 7:20-cv-00738-MFU-RSB Document 23 Filed 01/10/22 Page 7 of 15 Pageid#: 212
II. Standard of Review and Limitations on Federal Habeas
Federal courts reviewing constitutional claims adjudicated on the merits in state court
may grant relief on such a claim only if the state court’s decision was (1) “contrary to, or
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) “was based on an unreasonable determination of
the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C.
A federal district court reviewing a § 2254(a) petition is also limited in its review by the
doctrines of exhaustion, procedural default, and independent and adequate state law grounds.
The standard of review and these procedural doctrines promote the principles of finality,
comity, and federalism, recognizing a state’s legitimate interests in enforcing its laws,
preventing disruption of state judicial proceedings, and allowing states the first opportunity to
address and correct alleged violations of a state prisoner’s federal rights. Coleman v. Thompson,
501 U.S. 722, 730–31 (1991).
A habeas petitioner is required to exhaust his claims in state court before they can be
considered in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). To exhaust his claims, a petitioner must
present his federal constitutional claims to the highest state court, on the merits, before he is
entitled to seek federal habeas relief. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). Further,
the petitioner must present to the state court the same operative facts and the same controlling
legal principles that he seeks to present to the federal court. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364,
365–66 (1995); Kasi v. Angelone, 300 F.3d 487, 501–02 (4th Cir. 2002). Failure to do so
Case 7:20-cv-00738-MFU-RSB Document 23 Filed 01/10/22 Page 8 of 15 Pageid#: 213
“deprives[s] the state courts of an opportunity to address those claims in the first instance.”
Coleman, 501 U.S. at 732.
B. Procedural Default
A separate but closely related issue is the doctrine of procedural default. If a state court
has clearly and explicitly denied a petitioner’s claim based on a state procedural rule that
provides an independent and adequate ground for the state court’s decision, the claim is
procedurally defaulted for purposes of federal habeas review. Breard v. Pruett, 134 F.3d 615,
619 (4th Cir. 1998). A state procedural rule is independent if it does not depend on a federal
constitutional ruling, and it is adequate if it is firmly established and regularly applied by the
state court. Yeatts v. Angelone, 166 F.3d 255, 263–64 (4th Cir. 1998). A claim that has not been
presented to the highest state court but would be procedurally barred as untimely or successive
if the petitioner tried to present the issue to the state court now is considered simultaneously
exhausted and defaulted. Bassette v. Thompson, 915 F.2d 932, 936–37 (4th Cir. 1990).
C. Overcoming Procedural Default
For a federal court to consider the merits of a procedurally defaulted claim in a habeas
petition, the prisoner must show both cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of
the claimed federal violation. Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750. Cause for procedural default requires
the existence of some objective factor that is external to the defense and not fairly attributable
to the prisoner. Id. at 756–57. To show prejudice to overcome procedural default, a petitioner
must show that the claimed violation worked to his “actual and substantial disadvantage,
infecting his entire trial with error of constitutional dimensions.” United States v. Frady, 456 U.S.
152, 170 (1982).
Case 7:20-cv-00738-MFU-RSB Document 23 Filed 01/10/22 Page 9 of 15 Pageid#: 214
When a petitioner seeks federal relief for a defaulted claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel at his trial, the federal court applies a special test for “cause and prejudice.”
Specifically, a federal habeas petitioner must establish four elements: (1) the claim of
ineffective assistance of trial counsel is a “substantial claim;” (2) the “cause” is the lack of
counsel or ineffectiveness of counsel under the standards of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668 (1984); (3) the state post-conviction proceeding was the first time ineffective assistance of
counsel was raised; and (4) the state post-conviction proceeding was the first one in which
petitioner was actually or effectively allowed by state law to raise the claim. Trevino v. Thaler,
569 U.S. 413, 423 (2013); Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1, 13–15 (2012); Owens v. Stirling, 967 F.3d
396, 422–23 (4th Cir. 2020). Even if a claim has merit, a petitioner is not necessarily entitled
to relief; a substantial claim merely allows the federal court to consider the merits of an
otherwise-defaulted claim. Id. at 17.
III. Analysis of Claim
In the present case, the Supreme Court of Virginia never considered Moore’s claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel because the court denied Moore’s motion to amend his state
habeas pleading. Even if the court had permitted the amendment, however, it would not have
considered the claim because it was untimely. See Juniper v. Warden of Sussex I State Prison, 470
S.E.2d 290, 295–96 (Va. 2011) (holding that claims filed after the statute of limitations has run
are untimely, even when leave had been granted to file an amended petition). Moore filed his
motion to amend his petition on September 11, 2019, but by that time, the state statute of
limitations had expired. See Va. Code § 8.01-654(B). To be timely, Moore would have had to
file his motion to amend his state petition on or before July 2, 2019 (one year from the
Case 7:20-cv-00738-MFU-RSB Document 23 Filed 01/10/22 Page 10 of 15 Pageid#: 215
conclusion of his direct appeal). See Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(B). The motion to amend the
petition was not filed until September 11, 2019, meaning his claim would be untimely under
Virginia law and therefore procedurally barred. Because the claim was not timely raised in the
state court, under the state’s independent and adequate state law on timeliness, it is now
considered simultaneously exhausted and defaulted. Bassette, 915 F.2d at 936–37.
Although Moore’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is defaulted, the court may
nevertheless consider the merits of that claim if Moore can satisfy Martinez’s cause-andprejudice test. In Virginia, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be raised on direct
appeal; state post-conviction proceedings are the first opportunity for a petitioner to raise
them. Lenz v. Commonwealth, 544 S.E.2d 299, 304 (Va. 2001). In his original state habeas
petition, Moore raised ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to Brady violations.
If Moore had had an attorney at his state post-conviction proceedings, the attorney would
have been able to ascertain quickly that there were no Brady violations, allowing Moore to
make a timely claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to use the available Brady
material effectively on cross examination of Olvera. Therefore, the cause for default appears
to be that Moore did not have counsel in his state habeas proceeding. As a result, Moore’s §
2254 petition stands or falls on whether his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is a
“substantial claim,” meaning that it has some merit. Martinez, 566 U.S. at 14.
To determine whether Moore’s claim for ineffective assistance of counsel has merit,
the court must consider what a petitioner would have to show to prevail on such a claim. To
establish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show (1) that counsel’s
performance was so deficient that he was not functioning as counsel guaranteed by the Sixth
- 10 -
Case 7:20-cv-00738-MFU-RSB Document 23 Filed 01/10/22 Page 11 of 15 Pageid#: 216
Amendment and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). A petitioner must satisfy both prongs of the test in order
Deficient performance requires a showing that counsel’s performance fell below “an
objective standard of reasonableness . . . under prevailing professional norms.” Id. at 688. The
reviewing court must not rely on “the distorting effects of hindsight,” but must presume that
counsel’s decisions and actions fell within the wide range of reasonable strategy decisions. Id.
at 689–90. The benefit of the doubt must be given to the defense attorney. Woods v. Etherton,
136 S. Ct. 1149, 1151 (2016). And counsel is given wide latitude to make strategic decisions,
including what objections to make, what witnesses to call, and what arguments to make; such
decisions require knowledge of the rules of evidence and procedure, along with tactical
considerations that may be difficult to explain to a layperson. Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S.
242, 249 (2008). Cross-examination of witnesses falls within the scope of these strategic
decisions. Hunt v. Nuth, 57 F.3d 1327, 1333 (4th Cir. 1995). Unless a cross-examination strategy
is so egregious that it falls outside the prevailing professional norms of reasonableness, then
there is no deficient performance. Id.
At trial, Moore’s attorney elicited impeachment testimony that Olvera was also charged
with the murders of Alfonso and Noel; that he had made several prior inconsistent statements
about what happened and who was present; that he had changed his story to try to tell the
police what they wanted to hear; and that he had a motive to lie to help himself. For example,
the following exchange on cross-examination reveals the way in which counsel established that
Olvera had previously lied to investigators:
- 11 -
Case 7:20-cv-00738-MFU-RSB Document 23 Filed 01/10/22 Page 12 of 15 Pageid#: 217
Q. Do you recall when you were first interviewed, you were
interviewed by Inv. Hambrick and two agents from the
Department of Homeland Security?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And you remember initially telling them about the three black
A. Yes sir.
Q. Then it went from three black men to one black man?
A. Like I said at the time, I only said that because I wanted my
Trial Tr. at 316. Contrary to Moore’s assertions in the present petition, his trial counsel’s
utilization of Olvera’s prior inconsistent statements was not outside the “prevailing
professional norms” so as to violate Moore’s constitutional right to counsel.
Moore’s counsel also elicited testimony that Olvera was the only person who had
spoken to Noel and Alfonso to arrange the meetings where they were killed. Id. at 310. Olvera
admitted, under cross examination, that police found 14 grams of cocaine, scales, and guns in
his home, and that he had not been charged for any of those things. Trial Tr. at 302–304.
Indeed, Moore’s counsel sufficiently challenged Olvera’s credibility such that the jury acquitted
Moore of Alfonso’s murder, which, unlike Noel’s murder, was based almost exclusively on
Olvera’s testimony. In sum, the trial record reveals that Moore’s counsel adequately
undermined the credibility of Olvera’s testimony.
Moore nevertheless argues that his counsel should have done more—specifically, that
he should have tried to have Olvera concede that he had initially admitted to both murders.
At bottom, Moore’s criticisms amount to “grading the quality of counsel’s cross-examination.”
- 12 -
Case 7:20-cv-00738-MFU-RSB Document 23 Filed 01/10/22 Page 13 of 15 Pageid#: 218
Hunt, 57 F.3d at 1333. After Olvera had been impeached, additional impeachment would have
been cumulative, and there is no prejudice from failing to use cumulative impeachment
questions. Id. At most, Moore’s argument suggests that he did not receive the best possible
representation at trial. But Strickland requires reasonable representation, not perfection. As the
Fourth Circuit noted in Hunt:
Although [petitioner] persuasively argues that he did not receive
the best possible representation at trial, Strickland only requires
adequate counsel judged by a standard of reasonableness in the
light of prevailing norms of practice.
Id. Moore’s trial counsel easily met that standard through his vigorous cross examination and
effective impeachment of Olvera. That his attorney could have done even more on cross
examination is not determinative; on this record, the court concludes that his handling of the
Commonwealth’s main witness was not constitutionally deficient.
But even if Moore could establish deficient performance, he cannot prove prejudice
under Strickland. To establish prejudice, a petitioner must show that there is “a reasonable
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome,” or that “there is a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would
have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694; see also United States v. Higgs, 663 F.3d 726, 735
(4th Cir. 2011). Olvera had been impeached with prior inconsistent statements, his motive to
lie, and his personal involvement in the crime. That the jury acquitted Moore of the second
murder charge that depended almost entirely on Olvera’s testimony conclusively demonstrates
that his trial counsel impeached this key witness effectively.
Ultimately, given Moore’s ownership and possession of the gun that fired the fatal
shots into Noel, the video of his car at the Sports Complex less than 30 minutes before the
- 13 -
Case 7:20-cv-00738-MFU-RSB Document 23 Filed 01/10/22 Page 14 of 15 Pageid#: 219
murder, and his admission that he had been at the scene with Olvera, the court cannot
conclude as a matter of law that that this additional impeachment of Olvera would have made
any difference in the outcome. Even if the jury heard that Olvera previously said, “I did it,”
the ballistic evidence, the video, and Moore’s own admissions prevent the court from finding
that additional impeachment of Olvera had a reasonable probability of producing a different
result as to Noel’s murder. As the Fourth Circuit concluded when it found no prejudice from
failing to introduce testimony of five witnesses to impeach a codefendant-turned-prosecution
witness, “Even if fully credited, this testimony indicates only that [the witness] may have been
a more willing participant than he admitted. It does little, if anything, to undermine [the
witness’s] testimony as to [the defendant’s] participation in the murders.” Huffington v. Nuth,
140 F.3d 572, 581–82 (4th Cir. 1998). Such is the case here, and the court has ample confidence
in the decision reached by the jury.
Because Moore cannot prove defective performance or prejudice, his claim is not
substantial, and the court will not consider his procedurally defaulted ineffective-assistanceof-counsel claim.
For the reasons stated above, the court will grant the respondent’s motion to dismiss.
Further, when issuing a final order adverse to a § 2254 petitioner, the court must issue
or deny a certificate of appealability. Fed. R. Gov. § 2254 Cases 11(a). A certificate of
appealability may only issue if the movant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The movant must show that reasonable jurists
could debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the
- 14 -
Case 7:20-cv-00738-MFU-RSB Document 23 Filed 01/10/22 Page 15 of 15 Pageid#: 220
issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000). In the
context of a procedural ruling, the movant must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable and that the action states a debatable claim of the denial of a
constitutional right. Gonzales v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140–41 (2012). Moore has not made such
showings in this case.
The clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum Opinion and accompanying
Order to the parties.
ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2022.
/s/ Thomas T. Cullen__________________
HON. THOMAS T. CULLEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
- 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?