Williams v. Director, VDOC, No. 3:2011cv00392 - Document 14 (E.D. Va. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 11/9/11. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division KEVIN DONNELL WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 3:11CV392 DIRECTOR, VDOC, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Kevin Donnell Williams, pro se, brings ("§ 2254 this a Virginia state inmate proceeding petition Petition"). Williams pursuant to raises a 28 U.S.C. single § 2254 ground for relief: Petitioner represents the criminal conviction attacked herein to have been unconstitutionally obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment111 constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him and bases the claim on the holding of the United States Supreme Court decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts,121 decided on June 25, 2009. (Br. the Supp. § 2254 ground that Pet. 4.) Respondent has moved to dismiss the petition is barred by 1 As relevant here, on the one-year statute the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him . . . ." U.S. Const, amend VI. 2 In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009), the Supreme Court held that certificates of analysis of physical evidence were testimonial by nature and, thus, the government was required under the Confrontation Clause to produce the expert who prepared the certificate for cross-examination before offering it into evidence. of limitations governing federal habeas petitions. not responded. Williams has The matter is ripe for disposition. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 8, 2 006, Williams received a fifteen (15) year active sentence in the Circuit Court for the County of ("Circuit Court") offenses. CR05000666, 2006). for drug, Commonwealth Cir. Ct. R. firearm, v. at and habitual Williams, 100-102 Williams did not appeal his Nos. (Cir. Ct. Hanover offender CR05000214, filed convictions. Feb. 8, (§ 2254 Pet. 1; Br. Supp. Mot. Dismiss f 1.) On March 18, 2 010, petition for a writ of Dep't Corr. , No. Mar. 19, 2010).3 the Circuit habeas CL10000249-00, Court corpus. Cir. Ct. received Williams's Williams v. R. at 1 (Cir. Dir., Ct. Va. filed The Circuit Court dismissed this petition as untimely on August 20, 2010.4 Id. at 32-3 5. Williams appealed 3 The petition was received in the Circuit Court Clerk's office on March 18, 2010, but was not stamped "Filed" until March 19, 2010. Nevertheless, in Virginia "a pleading . . . would be deemed filed when received for the purpose of determining when the action was commenced . . . ." Layfield v. Indian Acres Club of Thornburg, Inc., No. CL01-378, 2002 WL 432375, at *2 (Va. Cir. Ct. Feb. 22, 2002). 4 In denying Williams's petition as untimely, Court cited Va. Code § 8.01-654(A)(2) which the Circuit states in relevant part: A habeas corpus petition conviction or sentence . . attacking a criminal . shall be filed within two 2 to the Circuit Va. Supreme Court Court's decision Dep't Corr., No. of Virginia on which, March 102448, 25, by 2011. at 1 (Va. Mar. 25, v. 2011). the Dir., Williams (Br. Supp. § 2254 9.) II. A. Statute Respondent time-barred 101 upheld Williams filed the § 2254 Petition on June 6, 2011.5 Pet. order, of ("AEDPA") of Limitations contends under the ANALYSIS the that federal Antiterrorism amended 28 Williams's statute and U.S.C. § § of Petition limitations. Effective 2244 2245 to Death Section Penalty establish is a Act one-year period of limitation for the filing of a petition for a writ of years from the date of final judgment in the trial court or within one year from either final disposition of the direct appeal in state court or the time for filing such appeal has expired, whichever is later. Va. Code addressed belated Ann. § 8.01-654(A) (2) . The Williams's contention that he commencement not discover the was decided of the limitations factual basis stating "Code for his § Circuit Court also was entitled to a period because he did claim until Melendez-Diaz 8.01-654(A)(2) 'contains no exception allowing a petition to be filed after the expiration of these limitations periods.'" Williams v. Dir., Va. Dep't Corr. , No. Mar. CL10000249-00, 19, 2010) Cir. Ct. (quoting Hines v. R. at 33-34 Kuplinski, (Cir. 267 Va. 1, Ct. filed 2 (2004) (emphasis added)). 5 The Court deems the § 2254 Petition filed on the date Williams swears he placed the petition in the prison mailing system. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court. 1. Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) now reads: A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of-- (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; (B) the date filing an on which the impediment to application created by State action violation or in laws of the of the United Constitution States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action; (C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; (D) 2. the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any subsection. 28 U.S.C. or § 2244(d). period of limitation under this Thirty Court, days after Williams's sentencing in the Circuit his judgment became final for purposes of AEDPA. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 704 (4th Cir. 2002) Hill v. ("[T]he one-year limitation period begins running when direct review of the state conviction is completed review has expired or . . . ." Va. Sup. Ct. R. 5A:6(a) was sentenced on February 8, became final on Friday, notice of appeal. before Williams March the time (citing 28 (West 2006) 2006. for U.S.C. seeking § 2244(d)(1)(A)); (amended 2010).6 Thus, direct Williams Williams's conviction March 10, 2006 the last date to file his The statute of limitations ran for 1468 days filed his Court on March 18, The when state habeas petition in the Circuit 2010. 18, 2010 filing, however, was not a "properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review." § 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(2). To toll the statute of 6 In 2006, Rule 5A:6(a) read in relevant part: Timeliness. No appeal shall be allowed unless, within 30 days after entry of final judgment or other appealable order or decree, counsel files with the clerk of the trial court a notice of appeal, and at the same time mails or delivers a copy of such notice to all opposing counsel and the clerk of the Court of Appeals. Va. Sup. Ct. R. 5A:6(a) (West 2006) (amended 2010). Thus, because Williams filed no notice of appeal, the time for seeking direct review expired entered final judgment. thirty days after the Circuit Court limitations a state court petition for collateral review must be "properly filed." A petition that "properly Id^; Artuz v. is filed" DiGuglielmo, denied within 544 U.S. by the 408, a Bennett, state meaning 531 U.S. 4, court of 417 (2005).7 as the 8 (2000). untimely not Pace AEDPA. is v. Thus, Williams's state habeas petition did not entitle him to statutory tolling. Williams filed the § 2254 Petition on statute of limitations ran for a total of date Williams's § 2254 judgment Petition. became Because Williams Petition within one-year of case, final the final 6, 2011. The 1912 days between the and failed June his to judgment filing file in his his of § the 2254 criminal his petition is barred by the statute of limitations. B. Belated Commencement The Court next must consider whether Williams is entitled to belated commencement of the limitations period. As pertinent here, the federal law provides which a judgment becomes that, final, in addition to date on the statute of limitations may commence on "the date on which the constitutional right asserted 7 Williams asks this Court to review the Circuit Court's decision to deny his petition as untimely pursuant to Va. Code § 8.01-654(A)(2). "It is beyond the mandate of federal habeas courts ... to correct the interpretation by state courts of a state's own laws." Sharpe v. Bell, 593 F.3d 372, 383 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing Cagle v. Branker, 520 F.3d 320, 324 (4th Cir. 2008)); see Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) ("[I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions."). 6 was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, been newly recognized by applicable to retroactively U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C). protects petitioners the cases This when Supreme on Court collateral belated their if the right has and review." commencement claims could made 28 provision not have been brought earlier. Here, the Supreme however, has Williams has not bases Court's Sixth holding failed to been his "made in Amendment claim solely Melendez-Diaz. on Williams, recognize that the Melendez-Diaz holding retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review," and thus does not qualify him for a belated commencement. 2119260, at Walker *4 (E.D. § 2244(d)(1)(C)); v. Va. at Diaz establish not implicating ^the *8 n.2 Teague United States, May 10, [Supreme] v. No. 2011) Court a No. 2:10CV548, 2011) 19, (N.D. (quoting v. Kelly, No. Ohio June 29, new fundamental criminal proceeding' (citing Apr. see also Mitchell 2011 WL 2579784, does Johnson, fairness and 28 WL U.S.C. 4:09-CV-2845, 2011) ^watershed' 2011 ("Melendez- procedural accuracy rule of the so as to warrant retroactive application." Lane, 489 09-6152 U.S. (GEB), ("Crawford181 is stated that Crawford v. Washington, 288, 301 2011 WL 1792562, not retroactive, Melendez-Diaz 541 U.S. 7 (1989))); 36 was (2004). Adams at *3 v. (D.N.J. and where the essentially an application of Crawford, there is nothing Melendez-Diaz should be applied differently." Bockting, 549 U.S. Even based if on 406, 421 entitled Williams Melendez-Diaz, from the date of that the to statute decision June without decision deciding, was that belated commencement, he 25, equitable pursuant tolling. (2010). ^petitioner' Ml) belated commencement 2009. 2011, Indeed, run Williams 710 days after the Thus, Melendez-Diaz entitles still did not file his 28 U.S.C. would even assuming, Williams § 2254 to a Petition § 2244(d)(1). Equitable Tolling Petitions 2560 that (citing Whorton v. limitations announced. within the one-year time limit. C. a of executed the § 2254 Petition on June 6, Melendez-Diaz suggest (2007))). is to that The to See 28 U.S.C. Holland Supreme v. Court § 2254 Florida, has has been Ct. clear 2549, that a only if he shows (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way' and burden Id. at 2562 rights S. to and at 418). his subject diligently, prevented timely filing." pursuing 130 "made is ^entitled to equitable tolling' he are (quoting Pace, 544 U.S. An inmate asserting equitable tolling "^bears a strong to show specific facts'" fulfills both elements of the test. which demonstrate Yang v. Archuleta, that he 525 F.3d 925, 928 1304, (10th 1307 (11th Cir. Williams entitled to entitled to has any for (quoting not v. Barrow, attempted to tolling. Accordingly, period, explain tolling. meritorious the Brown 512 F.3d 2008)). equitable limitation dates 2008) equitable demonstrated the Cir. or grounds that limitation Because one for of period why he should Williams the later applies, is not has Williams equitable be not tolling of commencement see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D), the petition must be denied as untimely. III. For (Docket the foregoing No. 10) will be DENIED, will CONCLUSION reasons, be Respondent's GRANTED. Motion Williams's § to 2254 Dismiss Petition and the action will be DISMISSED. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability ("COA"). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA will not issue unless a prisoner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional requirement is debate whether right." satisfied (or, should have been issues presented 28 only U.S.C. when for that matter, resolved were in a ^adequate "reasonable agree that) different to § 2253(c)(2). manner deserve This jurists could the petition or that encouragement the to proceed further.'" Slack v. McDaniel, (quoting Barefoot v. law or evidence consideration Estelle, suggests in this 463 U.S. that 529 U.S. 880, Williams matter. A is 473, 893 n.4 of (2000) (1983)). entitled certificate 484 to No further appealability will therefore be denied. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to Williams and counsel for Respondent. An appropriate Order shall issue. /s/ Ml_ Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia 10
]]>
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.
