Cofield v. Director of the Department of Corrections, No. 3:2013cv00828 - Document 18 (E.D. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 11/25/2014. (jsmi, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cofield v. Director of the Department of Corrections Doc. 18 L E 2 6 2014 L/, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND, VA Richmond Division FERRON COFIELD, Petitioner, Civil Action No. V. DIRECTOR OF THE 3:13CV828 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Ferron se, Cofield, a Virginia state prisoner to U.S.C. brings this petition pursuant Petition," ECF No. 1) 28 proceeding § challenging his August 10, revocation. Respondent ground that the federal habeas moves one-year petitions to dismiss, statute of bars the § 2254 (''§ 2254 2011 probation inter alia, limitations 2254 pro Petition. on the governing Although Respondent provided Roseboro^ notice, Cofield has not responded. The matter is ripe for disposition. I. A. State Proceedings Between Virginia PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1997 Beach and 2011, {^^Circuit four drug offenses. the Court") Circuit Court convicted of Cofield the City of of at least Cofield also repeatedly violated the terms ^ Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). Dockets.Justia.com of his probation sentences for imposed these in conjunction with the suspended convictions. Most relevant to the instant § 2254 Petition, on August 23, 2011, of the Circuit Court probation, and found ordered Cofield in violation of his Cofield to serve four months remaining on his sentence. Nos. CR-97-2306, CROO-1418, (§ 2254 Pet. 2.).^ at 1-2 the six years Commonwealth v. (Va. Cir. Ct. Aug. terms and Cofield, 23, 2011); Cofield filed no appeal. On August 23, 2012,^ Cofield filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court. Corpus 4637 the at (Va. 8, Cofield v. Cir. Circuit Ct. Court filed Aug. dismissed the Dep^t of Corr., 2012). Dir. No. of the 23, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Dep^t 2012). of No. CL12- On November 26, 2012, petition. CL12-4637, at 1-6 Corr., Cofield (Va. Cir. v. Ct. Dir. Nov. of 26, Cofield filed no appeal of this decision. ^ The Revocation Order fails to specify the length of the remaining portion of the sentence. remaining sentence was six years Pet. Cofield represents that the and four months. (§ 2254 2.) ^ The Circuit Court date stamped Cofield's petition filed on August 28, 2012. Respondent concedes that petition in institutional mail on August 23, that date as the date for filing under Va. (^'Timely filing of a paper by an inmate . . . by (1) an official stamp of the institution was deposited in the internal mail system on day for filing . . . . Cofield placed his 2012, and utilizes Sup. Ct. R. 3A:25 may be established showing the paper or before the last B. Federal Habeas Petition On November 19, this Court. the Court 2013, Cofield filed his § 2254 Petition in (§ 2254 Pet. 14.)^ In his rambling § 2254 Petition, construes Cofield to raise the following claims for relief: Claim One: Counsel rendered ineffective assistance when she failed to raise ''potential affirmative defenses of insanity by reason of irresistible impulse and settled insanity." (Br. Supp. § 2254 Pet. 4, ECF No. 1-1. Counsel [sh] ould've challenged the violation on mitigating factors, such as my mental health issues" on appeal. Claim Two: (Id.) Claim Three Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not adequately representing Cofield and by not fully presenting Cofield's explaining substance abuse issues and mental illness II. A. to the Circuit ANALYSIS S t a t u t e Of Limitations Respondent contends that the federal bars Court. Cofield's Effective Death claims. Section Penalty Act 101 of C'AEDPA") statute of limitations the Antiterrorism amended 28 U.S.C. § and 2244 ^ The Court employs the pagination assigned to the § 2254 Petition by the CM/ECF docketing system. ^ The Sixth prosecutions, the VI. Assistance Amendment provides: the accused shall of Counsel for enjoy his the defence." "'In right U.S. all criminal ... Const, to have amend. to establish a one-year period of limitation for the filing of a petition for a pursuant to the U.S.C. § 1. writ 2244(d) of habeas judgment of a corpus state by a person court. in custody Specifically, 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 on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action or in laws violation 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 28 B. Commencement Of The Statute Of Limitations Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) Cofield's judgment became final on Thursday, 2011, when the time to file Hill V. Braxton, September 22, a notice of appeal expired. 277 F.3d 701, 704 (4th Cir. 2002) See ("[T]he one- year limitation period begins running when direct review of the state conviction direct review is has completed expired or . when . the . time habeas petition on August seeking 28 U.S.C. (citing § 2244(d)(1)(A))); Va. Sup. Ct. R. 5A:6(a).® state for 23, Cofield filed his 2012. At the time of filing of until the filing, 335 days of the limitation period had expired. C. Statutory Tolling The statute of Cofield's Circuit state Court limitations was habeas petition on August dismissed Cofield had thirty days § 2254 Petition. tolled from the the petition remaining Cofield failed 23, on 2012, November 26, 2012. in which to timely file to file his § 2254 his Petition until November 19, 2013, nearly one year after the expiration of the limitation period. Thus, Cofield's § 2254 Petition, the statute of limitations bars unless he demonstrates entitlement to either a belated commencement of the limitation period under 28 The rule states in relevant part: ''No appeal shall be allowed unless, within 30 days after entry of final judgment or other appealable order or decree, counsel of the trial court a notice of appeal 5A:6(a). . . files . with Va. the clerk Sup, Ct. R. U.S.C. § Cofield 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D) nor equitable the tolling record or a or equitable suggests tolling. plausible commencement belated any of Neither basis the for limitation period.^ III. Accordingly, will be CONCLUSION Respondent's granted. The § Motion 2254 to Dismiss Petition will be (ECF No. 13) denied and the action will be dismissed. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a (^^COA") . 28 judge issues a certificate of appealability 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 right." satisfied debate whether (or, should have issues presented been for 28 only that resolved were proceed further.'" (quoting Barefoot v. U.S.C. when a ^adequate Slack v. Estelle, ^'reasonable matter, in agree different to McDaniel, 463 § 2253(c)(2). U.S. the manner or could petition that encouragement 529 U.S. 880, jurists that) deserve This 893 473, 484 & n.4 the to (2000) (1983)). No law or evidence suggests that Cofield is entitled to further consideration in this matter. A COA will therefore be denied. ^ At most, where the § 2254 Petition form inquires as to the timeliness of the petition, Cofield states: ''I had to file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the state, in order to exhaust my state remedies before I could file a federal Writ of Habeas Corpus." (§ 2254 Pet. 14 (capitalization corrected).) The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to Cofield and counsel of record. Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Date: ^
]]>
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.
