Juniper v. Pearson, No. 3:2011cv00746 - Document 154 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION - Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 08/03/2015. (tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Juniper v. Pearson Doc. 154 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division ANTHONY BERNARD JUNIPER, Petitioner, Civil Action No. 3:1 l-cv-00746 V. DAVID W. ZOOK, Warden, Sussex I State Prison, Respondent. OPINION This matter comes back to the Court on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to consider what, if any, procedurally defaulted claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel may be raised pursuant to Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012). Petitioner Anthony Bernard Juniper, an inmate on death row in Virginia, presents three potential claims in his Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Dk. No. 144.) David W. Zook, the Warden of Sussex I State Prison ("the Warden"), moves to dismiss the Amended Petition. (Dk. No. 146.) Because the Court finds that Juniper's amended claims do not meet the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court in Martinez, each is barred due to procedural default. Accordingly, the Court grants the Warden's Motion to Dismiss and denies Juniper's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Court previously set forth the grisly facts of the crimes at the heart of this petition in a Memorandum Opinion dated March 29, 2013, which the Court incorporates herein by reference. See Juniper v. Pearson, 2013 WL 1333513, at *1-6 (E.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2013) (Dk. Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
