Boyd v. Virginia Department of Corrections et al, No. 7:2017cv00086 - Document 3 (W.D. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 3/30/2017. (tvt)

Download PDF

cbeRK' olyl; u. ol s z ke s. smcour AT DANVI VA LLE. FI LED MA2 3û 2 1 27 I THE UNI N TED STATES DI STRI COURT CT FO R TH E W EST ERN DI STRI T O F V I G I I C R N A RO AN O K E DI I O N V SI NA TH A N I BO Y D , EL Pettoner, ii V. VI NI DEPARTM ENT OF RGI A CO RR EC TI N S,etal, O , R espondent s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) J UL BY: D L EM RK * D C K Ci lA c i N o.7: c 00086 vi ton 17- vM EM O R AN D UM O PI IO N N By: H on.Jaclson L.K i t ser Se orUnied St e Dit c Judge ni t at s srit N a ha elBoyd,a V i g ni i na e pr ee ng pr > ,t l d a pe ii f w rtofha a t ni r i a m t oc di o q ie tton or i be s - c puspurua t 28U. C.j2254.Peii rc lenge t valdiyofhi c i me or s nt o S. ttone hal s he i t s onfne nt p rua t ot eFe r ay2 , 01 ,u me t ft Cic i Co r o Ch rot Co ny.Afe u s n t h b u r 5 2 5 j dg n o he ru t u t f alte u t tr r vi wi t pe ii n,Ifnd t ti s ul bedimi s d s e e ng he tto i ha t ho d s s e umm a iy purua t Rul 4 oft rl s nt o e he Rul Goveni j2254Cas . es r ng es1 A fde a co tma no gr taj225 ha speii unls t peii re use t e r l ur y t an 4 bea tton e s he ttone xha td he r m e e a ia e i t cou t oft sat i whi h pe ii ne w a convi t d. 28 U . C. e di s va l bl n he r s he t e n c tto r s ce S. j2 4*) Prie v. d iu z 41 U.. 7 ( 9 3 ; a t nv. mi 40 U. 5 ( 9 ) 25 ; esr Ro rg e , 1 S 4 5 1 7 ) Slv o S t 4 S. 3 1 71. h, Thee xhausi r quie e i s ts id bys eki r vi w oft cli i t hi tsaecou t ton e r m nt s a ife e ng e e he am n he ghes t t r wihj rs ito t c nsd rtecam.O' ulva v Bo rk l5 6U. 8 8( 9 ) l t u id ci n o o i e h li S l n . ec e, 2 S. 3 1 99 . n i V igi a, non- a h r c ctc e us sat r e e i one oft ee w a ,de ndi on r ni a de t ow onvi an xha t t e em di s n hr ys pe ng t na ur oft c am sr ie Fis,t c c c n fl adie ta he t e he l i as d. rt he onvit a ie r c ppea t t Vig ni Cour of l o he r i a t Appe swih as e al t ubs quenta a t t Supr m eCour ofVigi ai t Cour ofAppe sr es ppe l o he e t r ni f he t al ul Boyd v. Virginia Department of Corrections et al Doc. 3 a i tt co c.VA. gans he nvit CODE j17. 411.Se nd,hec c ca atc t c ci 1co t onvit n ta k he onviton c l t r l by flng a s a e ha a pe ii n wih t c r ui c twhe e t c ola e aly ii t t be s tto t he ic t our r he onvi twas c e ce a t na alnga adves de sont t SuprmeCour ofVigi a I j8. onvitd nd he ppe i n re cii o he e t r ni. d. 01 lA pettonma bedimis pu s antt Rul 4 i i i cl rfom t peii t tape ii ri not ii y s s ed r u o e f t s ea r he tton ha ttone s e ild t r le . ntte o eif Dockets.Justia.com 65 A)1 ; Sup.Ct R.5: a) Fi l t convitc ne us rmedi byflngasae 4( ( ) Va. . 9( . naly,he c a xha t e es ii tt ha aspeii diecl wiht SuprmeCour ofVigi a.VA. be tton r ty t he e t r ni CODEj8. - 4( ( ) 0165 A)1. W hi he rr e i t ke t c c ve out s a n, he onvi tuli a el m us pr en t c a m s t t Supr m e Cour of c tm t y t es t he l i o he e t Vigi a a r evear lng fom t tc tbe or af der ldititc tca c i rt r ni nd ec i u i r ha our f e e a src our n onsde he c a m s A ha spe ii rha note us e sa e r m e esi t pe ii rhast r g unde li . bea ttone s xha t d t t e di f he ttone he i ht r sa el t r iet quesi pr e e by a a ia epr dur and f ist do s 28U . C. t t aw o as he ton es nt d ny val bl oce e al o o. S. j2254() c. The pe ii n c ea l s st tPe ii rhasnotpr e e cl i st t Supr e Cour tto l ry how ha ttone es nt d a m o he em t ofV igi a.2 I deed,Pe ii r s s a e ha aspe ii r m ai pe ng bef e t Cic tCour r ni n ttone ' t t be tton e ns ndi or he r ui t ofCha l t Count i Boyd v. rf , 1 r ote y n She if CL 5000286- 0. Pe ii r s f iur t exha ts a e 0 ttone ' a l e o us t t r di sma t s eme e nda es umm a y dimi s loft pe ii .3 Based upon t fndi t tPe ii r r s sa he tton he ng ha ttone hasnotma t r quiies t nta s de he e st ubsa il howi ofde a ofaconsiutonalrghta r quie by ng ni l tt i i s e rd 28U. C.j2253( andSlckv.McDa e,5 U. 473,484( S. c) a nil 29 S. 2000) ac tfc t of , eriiae a al biiy i de e ppe a lt s ni d. ENT ER : Thi s - - da ofM a ch,201 y r 7. ' Se rUnie St t sDitltJ ni t d a e src udge 2 Peii a knowldgesi t pe ii t theha notpr s t t i t nthabe cl m st te Supr e ttoner c e n he tton ha s e ened he nsa as ai o h em Cour ofV igi a,et rvi asaeha ascor peii o ana alfom t Cour ofAppe sofVigi a. t r ni ihe a t t be pus tton r ppe r he t al r ni 3 Pe ii rm a rfl hi fder ha spetton i heuns ce s ul pr s nt t cli st t Supr m e ttone y e ie s e al bea ii f uc s f ly e e s he am o he e Co ro Vignitru ho eo tetrerue dsrbd.P tinria vsd h we e,hthst t tlsae ut f ri a ho j n fh he ots ecie eio e s d ie , o vrta i i o 5e tt t me a dfd r l a e sp tln i l td S e28U. C. 2 4 () VA. Ej80l6 4 A)2 ; . u Ct R. n e ea h b a eio s s i e . e t mi S. j 2 4d , COD . -5 ( () Va S p. . * 59 a . :( ) 2

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.