Hamilton v. Director of VDOC, No. 3:2014cv00636 - Document 14 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 05/11/2015. Copy mailed to Hamilton on 5/11/2015.(tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hamilton v. Director of VDOC Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division CHRISTOPHER SHANE HAMILTON, Petitioner, Civil Action No. v 3:14CV636 DIRECTOR OF VDOC, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Christopher proceeding pro § 2254 se, (w§ 2254 dismiss. below, Shane Hamilton, brings Virginia ECF not No. 1). responded. On February Williamsburg the robbery, and felony counts 7, 2012, the the Circuit County term of eluding use of of of a police, Court James City Nos. 20479-00, 20490-00, 20562-00, two counts firearm, twenty-two Hamilton, 2012).1 moves reasons to stated PROCEDURAL HISTORY convicted Hamilton pursuant to a guilty plea, active to 28 U.S.C. Respondent For prisoner the Motion to Dismiss will be denied without prejudice. I. four state this petition pursuant Petition," Hamilton has a years 20481-00 and 20566-00, Hamilton appealed. and in the City ("Circuit of two counts of of prison. 1-3 abduction, On December 3, and to an Commonwealth v. 20484-00, (Va. of Court") sentenced Hamilton through at for Cir. 2012, Ct. 20489-00, Feb. 7, the Supreme 1 Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Commonwealth agreed to dismiss six additional charges. Plea Agreement at 3, Dockets.Justia.com Court of Virginia refused Hamilton's petition for appeal. Hamilton v. Commonwealth, No. 121286, at 1 (Va. Dec. 3, 2012). On November 4, of habeas corpus same claims Writ of as Corr. , No. Hamilton filed a petition for a writ in the Supreme Court in Habeas 2013, the instant Corpus 131738 at (Va. 1, § 2254 of Virginia raising the Petition. Hamilton v. filed Nov. 4, Dir. 2013) . of Petition for the Dep't of On June 6, 2014, the Supreme Court of Virginia granted the Respondent's motion to dismiss and dismissed Dep't of Corr., No. Thereafter, the petition. Hamilton v. Dir. of the 131738, 1-3 (Va. June 6, 2014). Hamilton filed the present § 2254 Petition in which he raises the following claims for relief:2 Claim One: Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to "perform pre-trial investigation" on the abduction and robbery charge and thereby "push[ed] a plea agreement on defendant" despite Hamilton's "reluctance to take a plea." (§ 2254 Pet. Attach. 2-3, ECF No. Claim Two: 1-1.) Hamilton's abduction convictions were invalid because they were incidental to his robbery convictions. (Id. at 4-6.) II. ANALYSIS Respondent's Motion to Dismiss fails to adequately address Hamilton's § 2254 Petition. First, Respondent asserts that the Commonwealth v. Hamilton, Nos. 20479-00, 20481-00 through 2048400, 20489-00 through 20493-00, 20562-00, and 20566-00 (Va. Cir. Ct. entered Sept. 7, 2011). 2 The Court employs the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF docketing system for Hamilton's § 2254 Petition and Attachment. one-year statute petitions bars of limitations the § 2254 governing Petition. federal In habeas reaching this conclusion, Respondent erroneously states that Hamilton filed no appeal. that To the contrary, Hamilton appealed, the record conclusively demonstrates and the Supreme dismissed his appeal on December 3, 2012. Court of Moreover, Virginia Hamilton's § 2254 Petition was timely filed. Second, in its procedural bars to "merits" this review, Court's Respondent raises Hamilton's review of merely claims instead of addressing the substance of each. that Hamilton's ineffective assistance Respondent argues claim is procedurally defaulted because the Supreme Court of Virginia applied the rule in Anderson v. Warden, 281 S.E.2d 886) (Va. 1981), and refused to consider his claims on habeas review because his allegations contradicted (Br. Supp. his Mot. representations Dismiss 9-10). at his guilty plea colloquy. Respondent fails to adequately explain why the Court should enforce that bar under the present circumstances. 1169956, at *5 See Davis (E.D. Va. v. Mar. Mitchell, 24, 2010) 188 F.3d 239, 247-48 (4th Cir. 1999); Supp. 490-91 (E.D. Va. 2005)). 2d 473, No. 3:09CV37, 2010 WL (citing Royal v. Taylor, Slavek v. Thus, Hinkle, 359 F. the Court cannot grant the motion to dismiss based on Respondent's argument that Hamilton's guilty plea precludes review of this claim. In the second portion of his ineffective assistance claim, Hamilton argues that counsel failed to advise him, prior to the entry of his guilty plea, of information that may have undermined the robbery and abduction charges, and for failing to move to strike the charges. Respondent relies on the Supreme Court of Virginia's narrow reading of Hamilton's argument listed under Claim One, and argues that the Supreme Court of Virginia's conclusion, that Hamilton failed to proffer the information that would have allegedly demonstrated his charges were invalid, not contrary to or an unreasonable application of (Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss. 11.) "information" and under Claim Two. further Hamilton, supporting however, argument Hamilton argues that: is federal law. supplies this for his claim "the alleged abductions [were] merely incidental to the crime of robbery" and "defendant did nothing more than what was necessary to commit the crime of robbery." (§ 2254 Pet. Attach 4.) Hamilton then provides the factual basis for his claim. While discerns counsel advise Jones plea eloquently that the heart articulated, of Hamilton's the Court petition Hamilton Sussex about I the State incidental Prison, 591 detention F.3d 707, prior to the entry of his guilty plea, invalid. Respondent avoids addressing readily argues rendered ineffective assistance by failing v. 2010), not to properly doctrine, 710 that (4th see Cir. thus, making his this aspect of Hamilton's ineffective assistance claim. Moreover, Hamilton's in addressing Claim Two, claim challenging his Respondent convictions argues that under the incidental detention doctrine is procedurally barred because the Supreme Court of Virginia applied the rule in Peyton v. King, 169 S.E.2d claim on 569, 571 habeas (Va. review 1969), because and a refused to "voluntary consider his and intelligent guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defenses antecedent to a guilty plea." (Mem. Supp. § 2254 Pet. 11.) instance, Hamilton knowingly, voluntarily, deficiencies incidental demonstrate of argues counsel detention that that or his However, in this guilty plea intelligently entered in failing doctrine. Peyton, or to Thus, any advise was into him not due about Respondent the fails corresponding to to federal jurisprudence, bars Hamilton's claim from review here. Accordingly, the Motion denied without prejudice. within thirty (30) response, which to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) raise be Respondent will be directed to file, days of the date of entry hereof, may will any procedural defenses a further and must the Court is directed to send a copy of this address the merits of Hamilton's claims. The Clerk of Memorandum Opinion to Hamilton and counsel for Respondent. Ml. /s/ Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Date: %L.OkS/tyrf
]]>
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.
