Williams v. Virginia Department of Corrections, No. 3:2017cv00117 - Document 26 (E.D. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 10/27/2017. Copy mailed to pro se petitioner. (tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. Virginia Department of Corrections Doc. 26 n • fl F ff:: fl En OCT 3 0 201? i ! ^ ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA j C'JR. US Richmond Division VINCENT EUGENE WILLIAMS, Petitioner, V. Civil Action No. 3:17CV117 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Vincent Eugene Williams, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition," ECF No. 1) challenging the manner in which the Virginia Department of Corrections is executing his fifteen-year sentence for robbery the Circuit Court for the County of Stafford ("VDOC") imposed by ("Circuit Court"). Respondent has moved to dismiss on the grounds that, inter alia, Williams's sentence is fully served and thus the action is moot. Williams has responded. forth below, (ECF Nos. the Motion to Dismiss I. On September 24, the Circuit Court. Court imposed a 2254 sentence 25.) (ECF No. PROCEDURAL 1990, (§ 24, For the reasons set 20) will be granted. HISTORY Williams pled guilty to robbery in Pet. of 6, ECF No. fifteen years 1.)^ with The Circuit nine years ^ The Court employs the pagination assigned to Williams's submissions by the CM/ECF docketing system. Dockets.Justia.com suspended (the "Robbery Sentence"). No. 21-5.) (Brown Aff. H 4d n.l, ECF "On July 15, 2003, offender Williams became a state- responsible offender," and " [w]hen Williams was received by the VDOC," he had several outstanding sentences, including the fifteen-year sentence for robbery imposed by the Circuit Court. (Id. ^ 4.) "On July mandatory parole." years suspended of Corrections 2009, the sentence "[Williams] was on 2008, Williams was released on (Id. 1 5.) On August 21, four 21, the Circuit Court revoked and reimposed remaining for his 15, by 2015, previously (Id. ^ 7.) Virginia Department of after the time on his Robbery Sentence.^ Williams's conviction. the 2016," On or about July 7, on robbery discharged March time he had satisfied all of (Id. ^ 16.) Williams filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Circuit Court wherein he alleged that the VDOC had incorrectly calculated his sentences and that he had already imposed by Circuit Court No. 21-4, the at completed Circuit denied 50, 54.) the original sentence (ECF 21-3, Court. the petition The on Supreme Williams's petition for appeal. No. October Court (ECF No. of 19, for at robbery 9.) 2015. Virginia The (ECF refused 21-4, at 80.) ^ Williams is currently incarcerated in the Henrico County Jail on unrelated matters. n.l, ECF No. 21.) (Mem. Supp. Resp't's Mot. Dismiss 1 Williams filed his current challenges § 2254 execution Sentence, arguing that as to the four-year term imposed by the he "serv[ed] his 2, Williams 2009, of February 2017.^ Circuit Court on August 21, the Petition on Robbery excessive time totalling more time served than state law permits for completion of a four (4) year sentence that was the remaining portion of an original fifteen (15) year sentence." II. (§ 2254 Pet. 6.) APPLICABLE CONSTRAINTS UPON FEDERAL HABEAS REVIEW In order to obtain federal habeas relief, at a minimum, a petitioner must demonstrate that he is "in custody in violation of the Constitution or 28 U.S.C. § laws 2254(a). Penalty Act ("AEDPA") authority to grant Specifically, The or treaties of Antiterrorism the United and States." Effective Death of 1996 further circumscribed this Court's relief by way of a writ of habeas corpus. " [s]tate court factual determinations are presumed to be correct and may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence." Gray v. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), Branker, 529 § 2254(e)(1)). F.3d 220, 228 Additionally, (4th Cir. 2008) under 28 U.S.C. a federal court may not grant a writ of habeas corpus ^ The earliest possible date of filing of a habeas petition from an incarcerated pro se litigant is the date on which the prisoner delivered the petition to prison officials for mailing. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). Here, Williams's § 2254 Petition includes a declaration indicating that he placed his petition in the prison mailing system on February 2, 2017. (§ 2254 Pet. 12.) based on any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the adjudicated claim: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision unreasonable determination of that was based on the facts in light an of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) (1)-(2) . The Supreme that the question "is not whether a state court's determination determination was threshold." was v. incorrect Landrigan, but "A habeas presents a corpus 550 U.S. 1998) no (citing Spencer v. case actual or injury decision." Corp. , controversy 494 (stating is moot U.S. 472, the that Shanks, unless the "be higher 473 (2007) no longer (2000)). when F.3d 523 U.S. 523 U.S. 7 by § 2, 691 a has of the (10th Cir. (1998)). petitioner redressed federal at 7 III, 690, 1, it There is suffered favorable an judicial (quoting Lewis v. Cont'l Bank (1990)); 477 past 144 Kemna, can Spencer, that pronouncing that that ANALYSIS petition Aragon v. whether 465, case or controversy under Article Constitution." emphasized substantially (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 410 III. has federal court believes the unreasonable—a Schriro Court see U.S. courts "are actions which Spencer, not in have 523 the no at 18 business of demonstrable continuing effect were right or wrong"). Where a habeas petitioner's sentence has expired and he does not challenge the underlying conviction itself, he must demonstrate the existence of "collateral consequences" that rise to the level of an actual injury. Id. at 14 (holding that courts will not presume any actual injury arising from parole revocation if petitioner is no longer incarcerated) 631-33 (citing Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, (1982))) . Williams had fully served the Robbery Sentence when he was released by the VDOC on March 15, 2016.^ No. 21-5.) Williams February 2, 2017. calculated the conviction. conviction "[i]n the he was upon [petitioner] consequences 2008) of bears not not a the sufficient See to § 2254 serve challenge attempt calculation him. (4th Cir. absence current required does and does incorrect consequences 284 time itself his Petition on Williams complains that the VDOC incorrectly Williams allegedly 280, filed (Brown Aff. ^ 16, ECF to States the v. any burden to of meet collateral underlying that the 545 F.3d (holding that consequences, demonstrating Article robbery collateral Hardy, (alteration in original) presumption of his demonstrate inflicted United for Ill's collateral case-or- ^ As discussed above, Williams is currently incarcerated in the Henrico County Jail for an unrelated matter. Supp. Resp't's Mot. Dismiss 1 n.l, ECF No. 21.) 5 See (Mem. controversy requirement" F.3d 345, 348 Williams moot with argues the sentence imposed was time being No. that his filed Circuit . . . his he for was not a of a[n] habeas active an alleged parole violation that towards of Supp. Pet'r's Mot. however, (Mem. writ "serving completion . , . 25.) 170 Petition is § 2254 petition Court [for] served current The relevant inquiry, question Probber, (2d Cir. 1999))). because when he corpus (quoting United States v. the sentence Dismiss 1, in ECF is whether Williams's Robbery Sentence had expired when he filed his § 2254 Petition in this Court. Williams See Spencer, filed his 523 U.S. current § at 7-8. 2254 Petition after he was released by the VDOC, and he does not demonstrate any collateral consequences resulting from the allegedly incorrect calculation.^ Accordingly, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 20) will be ^ The Court notes that Williams also challenged the execution of his Robbery Sentence in a prior petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Williams v. Clarke, No. 3:12CV305, 2013 WL 458551, at *1 (E.D, Va. Feb. 6, 2013). The Court denied Williams's petition and dismissed the action on February 6, 2013. Id. at *4-5. Williams filed a Motion to Vacate on Motion to Vacate as petition, Williams at *2 a 15, 2013. successive, The Court unauthorized 28 and dismissed the petition for want of v. Clarke, (E.D. Petition March Va. could Nos. July also be 3:11CV417, 22, 2013). considered 3:13CV245, Williams's a construed U.S.C. 2254 jurisdiction. 2013 WL current successive, § the 3804957, § 2254 unauthorized habeas petition because Williams again challenges the execution of his Robbery Sentence. The Court does not further address this issue because Williams was released by the VDOC before he filed his current § 2254 Petition, rendering his current § 2254 Petition moot. granted.® Dismiss Williams's Motion to Dismiss Respondent's Motion to (ECF No. Petition will be 24) will denied and be denied the as action moot. will be The § dismissed. 2254 A certificate of appealability will be denied. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Williams and counsel of record. It is so ORDERED. /3/ Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia ® On August Substitution of the Court will Counsel. 7, 2017, Respondent filed a Motion for Counsel. (ECF No. 18.) For good cause shown, grant Respondent's Motion for Substitution of
]]>
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.
