Sampson v. Clarke, No. 2:2015cv00370 - Document 18 (E.D. Va. 2016)

Court Description: FINAL OPINION AND ORDER. 14 Motion to Amend/Correct is GRANTED as a supplemental briefing to the petition. 5 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED. Signed by Chief District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith on 9/23/2016. Copies mailed 9/23/2016. (jmey, )

Download PDF

Sampson v. Clarke Doc. 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIi. Norfolk Division SEP 2 3 2016 KEITH SAMPSON, #1132316, CLERK. US DISTRICTCOURT NOHFOi.K. VA Petitioner, ACTION NO. V. HAROLD W. CLARKE, 2:15cv370 Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent. FINAL OPINION AND This matter was ORDER initiated by Petition for Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("petition"), a Writ of Habeas submitted pro se by petitioner Keith Sampson. The petition alleges violation of federal rights pertaining to petitioner's convictions in 2012, in the Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake, Virginia, of two counts of robbery, two counts of using a firearm in commission of a robbery, and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. result of the convictions, As a petitioner was sentenced to serve 31 years in prison. The matter was referred to a for report U.S.C. § and recommendation 636(b)(1)(B) and United States Magistrate Judge pursuant (C) and Rule to 72 the of provisions the Rules of of 28 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The Report and Recommendation ("R&R") filed recommends denial and dismissal of the petition. July 15, 2016, Each party was Dockets.Justia.com advised of his right to file written objections to the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge. On August 15, 2016, the court received the petitioner's Objection to the R&R. 16). On August 22, 2016, the court received a (ECF No. handwritten submission from the petitioner which it construed as a Supplemental Objection to the R&R (ECF No. 17). The respondent filed no response to either set of objections and the time for responding has now expired. The matter is ripe for final review by this court. I. Petitioner June 23, 2016 filed a (ECF No. pleading entitled "Motion to Amend" 14), which the R&R recommended granting. However, upon review, the pleading is not, amend the petition, on in effect, a motion to as it contains no new grounds for relief. To the extent that the petitioner filed a pleading labeled "Motion to Amend, there are not any new grounds raised by the pleading that are not already raised in the petition. The grounds raised by the petition are as follows: violation of Due Process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments based on insufficient evidence; violation of right to a fair trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments based on systematic assistance information; of counsel in based on jury selection; failure to ineffective seek relevant ineffective assistance of counsel based on failure to 1 Similarly, court exclusion construed the petitioner entitled the document that this as "Motion to Amend." a "Supplemental ECF No. 17 at 1. 2 Objection" to the R&R as a investigate and interview ineffective assistance crucial based on witnesses failure discredit the state's scientific evidence; of counsel based challenging an on failure indictment; to and provide to in the case; investigate and ineffective assistance an violation adequate of Due defense Process by with respect to a re-numbered indictment. ECF No. 1. The grounds raised by the pleading entitled "Motion to Amend" are as follows: ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment based on failure to challenge a defective indictment and violation of Due Process under defective the Sixth indictment. and ECF No. Fourteenth Amendments based on a 14. The phrasing of the arguments in the "Motion to Amend" may be somewhat different, but essentially the petitioner makes the same arguments relating to the allegedly defective indictment in the "Motion to Amend" that he makes in the petition. Amend" simply defective about elaborates indictment, re-numbering June 19, 2012. what the and mentions the ECF No. on indictment 14 at 2-3. petitioner that at The "Motion to his there alleges was a was discussion sentencing hearing However, both the a "Motion on to Amend" and the petition assert that the petitioner was denied his rights to Due Process and Effective Assistance of Counsel based on his attorney's failure to challenge the numbering of the indictment following a such, the mistrial. ECF No. "Motion to Amend" 1 at 16-18; does not ECF No. 14 at 2-4. raise any new grounds As for relief not already raised in the petition. However, to the extent that the "Motion to Amend" adds additional argument to the grounds already raised in the petition, the court in ruling herein, and the magistrate judge as addressed in the R&R, ^ have considered these arguments. Accordingly, the "Motion to Amend" (ECF No, 14) is GRANTED as a supplemental briefing to the petition.^ II. The court, objections having reviewed the record and filed by the petitioner to the R&R, examined the and having made de novo findings with respect to the portions objected to, does hereby adopt and approve the findings and recommendations set forth in the R&R filed July 15, respondent's Motion to Dismiss 2016 (ECF (ECF No. No. 5) 15). Accordingly, is GRANTED, petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and the (ECF No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED. Petitioner is hereby notified that he may appeal from the judgment entered pursuant to this Final Opinion and Order by filing a written notice of appeal with the Clerk of this court. United States 23510, Courthouse, within thirty (30) 600 Granby Street, Norfolk, Virginia days from the date of entry of such judgment. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, therefore, the Court declines 2 See R&R at 38-39. 3 See supra note 1. to issue any certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 22(b) of the Federal Cockrell, Rules 123 S.Ct. of Appellate 1029, 1039 Procedure. See Miller-El v. (2003). The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Final Opinion and Order to petitioner and to provide an electronic copy of the Final Opinion and Order to counsel of record for respondent. Rebecca Beach Smith liefJudge REBECCA BEACH CHIEF September , 2016 JUDGE SMITH

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.