Alston v. Ray, No. 1:2019cv00996 - Document 19 (E.D. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 5/8/20. (c/m on 5/8/20)(klau, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Alston v. Ray Doc. 19 Case 1:19-cv-00996-LMB-IDD Document 19 Filed 05/08/20 Page 1 of 17 PageID# 119 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division Demount Alston, Petitioner, I:19cv996(LMB/IDD) V. Tracy S. Ray, Warden, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Demount Alston ("Alston" or "petitioner"), a Virginia inmate proceeding pro sq, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254, challenging the validity of his January 17, 2017 convictions in the Circuit Court ofthe City of Hampton, Virginia for aggravated malicious wounding,robbery, shooting into an occupied vehicle, possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony, and two counts of use ofa firearm during the commission ofa felony. Case Nos. CRl6-653-00 through -05. [Dkt. No. 1]. Respondent, Tracy S. Wray("Wray" or "respondent"), has filed a motion to disniiss and Rule 5 answer, along vAth a supporting brief. [Dkt. Nos. 11-13]. Alston received the notice required by Local Rule 7(K)and Roseboro v. Garrison. 528 F.2d 309(4th Cir. 1975),and has filed an opposition to the Respondent's motion. [Dkt. Nos. 31,36-37]. For the reasons that follow, the Respondent's motion to dismiss will be granted. I. Background On November 2,2016, Alston was found guilty in a bench trial ofaggravated malicious wounding, possession of a firearm by a non-violent felon,two counts of using a firearm in the commission ofa felony, robbery, and maliciously discharging a firearm at a vehicle. (Rec. at 79- 80). He was sentenced on January 17, 2017 to twenty years in prison for malicious wounding Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:19-cv-00996-LMB-IDD Document 19 Filed 05/08/20 Page 2 of 17 PageID# 120 Case 1:19-cv-00996-LMB-IDD Document 19 Filed 05/08/20 Page 3 of 17 PageID# 121 Case 1:19-cv-00996-LMB-IDD Document 19 Filed 05/08/20 Page 4 of 17 PageID# 122 Case 1:19-cv-00996-LMB-IDD Document 19 Filed 05/08/20 Page 5 of 17 PageID# 123 Case 1:19-cv-00996-LMB-IDD Document 19 Filed 05/08/20 Page 6 of 17 PageID# 124 Case 1:19-cv-00996-LMB-IDD Document 19 Filed 05/08/20 Page 7 of 17 PageID# 125 Case 1:19-cv-00996-LMB-IDD Document 19 Filed 05/08/20 Page 8 of 17 PageID# 126 Case 1:19-cv-00996-LMB-IDD Document 19 Filed 05/08/20 Page 9 of 17 PageID# 127 Case 1:19-cv-00996-LMB-IDD Document 19 Filed 05/08/20 Page 10 of 17 PageID# 128 Case 1:19-cv-00996-LMB-IDD Document 19 Filed 05/08/20 Page 11 of 17 PageID# 129 Case 1:19-cv-00996-LMB-IDD Document 19 Filed 05/08/20 Page 12 of 17 PageID# 130 Case 1:19-cv-00996-LMB-IDD Document 19 Filed 05/08/20 Page 13 of 17 PageID# 131 Case 1:19-cv-00996-LMB-IDD Document 19 Filed 05/08/20 Page 14 of 17 PageID# 132 Case 1:19-cv-00996-LMB-IDD Document 19 Filed 05/08/20 Page 15 of 17 PageID# 133 Case 1:19-cv-00996-LMB-IDD Document 19 Filed 05/08/20 Page 16 of 17 PageID# 134 Case 1:19-cv-00996-LMB-IDD Document 19 Filed 05/08/20 Page 17 of 17 PageID# 135
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
