Carter v. Clarke, No. 7:2018cv00010 - Document 20 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 11/13/2018. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
:kyy..A eq TpA t j N :v( l ) lk :i, t gIAi h::t k$# Fll ab IN TH E U NITED STATES DISTRIC T C O UR T FO R TH E W ESTERN DISTR ICT O F V IR G IN IA R O AN O K E DIW SIO N ' K V!!3* 2218 . BgJu : D uu èLERK E JA M E S W .CA R TER , Petitioner, * Case N o.7:18cv00010 M EM O R AN D U M O PIN IO N By:H on.Jackson L.K iser Senior United StatesD istrictJudge H A R O LD CLA RK E, R e:pondent. JamesW .Carter,aVirginia inm ateproceeding pro K ,tilely filed a petition foram itof habeascorpus,pursuantto 28 U.S.C.j2254,challenging thevalidity ofhisconfnementon a ' probation revocation by the Roanoke City CircuitCourt. Respondentfiled a motion to dism iss, and Carterfailedto respond,m nkingthem atterripe fordisposition.Afterreview oftherecord,I grantthe m otion to dism iss, and dismissthepetition.1 1. In 2016,Carter'sprobation officerauthoredamajorviolation repoz.talleging Carterwas convicted of DUI and driving on a revoked license, and thathe had failed to reportto the probation office,had used alcohol,and had tested positive formarijuana and cocaine. Carter conceded the violations, and the Roanokè City Circuit Cotlrt revoked eight years of his previously suspended sentence,re-suspended six years ofthe sentence,ordered three years of Carter v. Clarke supervised probation,and setajudgmentof$623. Carter'sappealto theCourtofAppealsof Doc. 20 Virginia wastmsuccessful. He éid notfilea directappealto the SupremeCourtofVirginia. Carter later filed a state habeas petition based on the probation revocation, but the Suprem e CourtofV irginia denied relief. 1Thisopinion om itsinternalcitations, alterations,andquotationm arksthroughoutthisopinion,tm less otherwisenoted.SeeUnitedStatesv.Marshall,872F.3d213,217n.6(4thCir.2017). 1 Dockets.Justia.com II. Carterraises the follow ing claim s' . The Comm onwea1th called a witness at the revocation hearing that violated Carter's confrontation rights;and ' 2. Trialcotmselwasineffectiveforfailingto objecttothetestimony ofaprobation officer thatdid notknow Cm erdtuing the revocation hearing. TherespondentacknowledgesthatCarter'spetition istim ely. 111. Standard ofR eview To obtain federalhabeas relief,a petitioner mustdem onstrate thathe is ççin custody in violation ofthe Constitm ion orlawsortreaties ofthe Urlited States.'' 28 U.S.C.j 2254($. Under28 U.S.C.j 2254(*,however,the federalhabeas cottrtmay notgrantawritofhabeas corpusbasedon anyclaim thatastatecourtdecidedonthemeritstmlessthatadjudication: (1)Resttlted in a decision that was contrary to,or involved an umeasonable application of,clearly estabiished Federallaw,asdeterminedbytheSupreme Courtofthe U nited States;or ' (2)Resulted inadecisionthatwasbasedonanunreasonabledetennination ofthe factsin lightoftheevidencepresented in the Statecourtproceeding. 28 U.S.C.j2254(*;see also W illiamsv.Taylor,529 U.S.362,403-13 (2000). tdW here,as here,the state court'sapplication ofgoverning federallaw ischallenged,itmustbe shown to be notonly erroneous,butobjecti ovelytmreasonable.'' Yarboroiah v.Gentry,540U.S.1,5(2003). Under this standard,ç1a state court's determination that a claim lacks m eritprecludes federal habeasreliefso long asfair-mindedjurists could agree on the correctness ofthe state court's decision.'' Harrington v.Richter,562 U.S.86,101(2011). TheAEDPA standard islthighly deferential''to both factualfindings and legalconclusions,and the petitionerbears the burden of proof.Id.at105;Cullenv.Pinholster,563U.S.170,181(2011). 2 A petitionerclaiming ineffective assistance ofcounselm ustsatisfy the two-pronged test setforth in Strickland v.W ashincton,466 U.S.668 (1984). tç-l-he petitionerm ust show both defcientperfonnance and prejudice;the two are separate and distinctelements.'' Spencerv. ' M urrav,18F.3d229,232-33(4th Cir.1994). Forthe firstprong,petitioherm ustshow çlthatcounselm ade errors so seriousthatcotm sel was not functioning as the çcounsel' guaranteed the defendantby the Sixth Amendment.'' Strickland,466 U .S.at 687-88. çd-l-he proper m eastlre of attorney perform ance rem ains sim ply reasonableness under prevailing professional norm s.'' Id. at 688. H abeas courts m aintain a içstrong presumption'' that cotmsel's conduct fell within the Sçwide range of reasonable professionalassistance.'' 1d.at689. Gvudicialscrutiny ofcolmsel'sperform ancem ustbellighly deferential,''and counselis tçpermitted to setpriorities,determine trialstrategy,and pressthose claim swith thegreatestchancesofsuccess.''ld. For the second prong, a petitioner m ust dem onstrate that there is a SGreasonable probability that,butforcounsel'sunprofessionalenors,the resultofthe proceeding would have been different.'' 1d.at694. (&A reasonableprobability isaprobability sufficientto underminethe confidenceoftheoutcome.'' J#=.Lastly,çtarlattorney'sfailureto raiseameritlessargument(q cannotform the basisofa successfulineffective assistance of counselclaim because the resultof the proceeding would nothave been differenthad the attorney raised the issue.'' U nited States v. Kimler,167 F.3d 889,893 (5th Cir.1999);see also M oorev.United States,934 F.Supp.724, 731(E.D.Va.1996). IV . ProceduralD efault The U nited States Suprem e Cotu' thas long held thata state prisoner'shabeas claim s m ay notbe entertained by a federalcourtGtwhen (1)a state courthas declined to address Ethoseq 7 claimsbecausetheprisonerhad failed to meetastateproceduralrequirement,and (2)thestate judgmentrestson independentand adequatestateprocedlzralgrotmds.''M aplesv.Thomas,565 U.S.266,280 (2012).A proceduralruleisadequateSçifitisregularly orconsistently appliedby the state coult'' and independent ûcif it does not depend.on a federal constim tionalruling.'' Yeattsv.Angelone,166F.3d255,260(4th Cir.1999).Slaytonv.Panigan,205S.E.2d680(Va. 1974)isan adequate and independentstateprocedtlralbarthatariseswhen apetitionercould have raised an issue attrialand on directappeal,butfailed to do so. See Vinson v.Trtze,436 F.3d412,417 (4th Cir.2006)tparricanisarladequateandindependentbar.). Sçlfa claim is defaulted,then petitionerm ustfailon thatclaim tmlesshe can show that cause and prejudice orafundnmentalmiscarriageofjusticemightexcusehisdefault.'' Bellv. True,413 F.Supp.2d 657,676 (W .D.Va.2006). The (çcause''prong requiresapetitionerto demonstratethattherewereEiobjectivefactors,''extemaltohisdefense,whichimpededhim from raising his claim at an earlier stage. M uzrav v.Carrier,477 U.S.478,488 (1986). The Sûprejudice''prongrequiresapetitionertoshow thatthealleged.constimtionalviolationworkedto his actualand substantialdisadvantage,infecting his entire trialwith error of a constitutional magnimde. J. IJ-. M eanwhile, the fundamentalmiscazriage of justice exception.requires a petitionertoprovehisactualinnocence.Schlupv.Delo,513U.S.298,339-40(1995). The state courtfotmd thatClaim 1wasprocedtlrally ban' edby Panigan. Carterv.Clarke, No.171240,slip op.at1-2 (Va.March30,2018),ECFNo.16-4 (citingParrican andbaningthe claim tdbecausethisnon-jtzrisdiçtionalissuecouldhavebeen raised attrialand on directappeal and, thus, is not cognizable in a petition for a wri t of habeas corpus''). Parrican is an . independent atld adequate bar, and Cartey has not alleged any facts dem onstrating cause and prejudice,or a fhndamentalmiscarriage ofjustice. See Vinson,436 F.3d at4179Burketv. 4 Ancelone,208F.3d 172,183 n.10 (4th Cir.2000)(reasoningthatbecausepetitionerbearsthe btlrden toraisecauseandprejudiceand actualinnocence,acourtneednotconsidereitherifnot asserted by petitioner). Therefore,Claim 1isprocedurallyban' edfrom federalreview without CXCUSC. M erits In Claim 2,Carterallegesthattrialcounselwasineffective forfailing to objectto the testim pny ofa probation officer thatdid notknow Carter dlzring the revocation hearing. The Suprem eCourtofVirginiaconcludedthattheargllm entfailed to satisfy eitherStricklandprong: TheCourtrejectsthisclaim becausethereisno constitutionalrightto counselor the concom itant rightto the effective assistance of counselwhère,as here,the record, including the revocation pro 'ceeding transcript, demonstrate petitioner conceded the violations and has not identiûed any m itigating circtunstances or complex reasonswhy revocation wasinappropriate and therightto cotm selwould have attached. W alkerv.Forbes,292 V a.417,422-25,790 S.E.2d 240,243-45 . (2016);seealsoGacnonv.Scarpelli,411U.S.778,790(1973). Carterv.Clarke,N o.171240,slip op.at 2. The'ruling ofthe state courtw as notcontrary to,or an unzeasonable interpretation of,federallaw,oran tmreasonabledeterm ination ofthe facts. Atthe threshold, i'the Suprem e Courthas consistently held that because there is no constitutional right to counselin state post-conviction proceedings,a defendant cnnnotraise an ineffective assistance of cotmsel claim as a result of actions occurring in post-conviction proceedings.'' United States v.Allcood,48 F.Supp.2(1554,559 (E.D.Va. 1999) (citing Colemanv.Thompson,501U.S.722;Gagnonv.Scarnelli,411U.S.77j(1973:. H ow ever, assllm ing Carter could bring an ineffective assistance claim , he still cannot demonstrate prejudice. Even iftheprobation officerdid nottestify,the evidence ofCarter's violations and his concessions would still have resulted in revocation of his probation. Furthermore,he has notproffered any rnitigating evidence thatw ould have likely reduced llis 5 sentence. Therefore, he fails to show that, but for cotmsel's errors, the outcom e of the 1 proceedingwouldhavebeen different,and Iwillgrantthem otion to dismissasto Claim 2. V I. For the forejoing reasons,I grant Respondekt's motion to dismiss and dismiss the petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus. Based upon my finding that Petitioner has notmade the requisite substantialshowing ofa denialofa constimtionalrightas required by 28 U.S.C.j 2253(c),acertificateofappealabilityisdenied. ENTERED this e--day ofNovember,2018. '?- .' S O 6 ITED TA TES ISTRICT JUD G E
]]>
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.
