Davis v. Booker, No. 7:2018cv00214 - Document 17 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 11/28/2018. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICE U.3.Dl 8T.COURT AT DANMLLE,VA FILED N0# 2 32213 JU$: LIA y ., D DLRu CLEjK FIO NRTT HHEEUWE NITSETDER ST NADTIE SS TR DIC STROIF CT VI CRG OUIN RI TA sz .U. ra R O A N O K E D IW SIO N BOBBY LEE DAVIS, CASE NO.7:18CV 00214 Petitioner, M EM O M ND U M O PIM O N BERNARD BOOKER, By:H on.Jackson L .K iser Senior U nited States DistrictJudge R espondent. Bobby Lee Davis,a Virginia inm ate proceeding pro K ,filed a petition for a writ'of habeascorpus,pursuantto 28U.S.C.j2254,challengingthevalidity ofhisconfinementon a judgmentintheCampbellCountyCircuitCotu'tfordrugoffenses.Respondentfiledamotion to dismiss,and Davisresponded,making the matterripefordisposition.Davishasalso m oved to expand the record. A fter review of the record,1w ill grantthe m otion to expand the record and grantthe m otion to dism iss. 1. B ackground On Janum'y 20, 2015,the Campbell Cotmty Circuit Court entered finaljudgment, convicting Davis of multiple drug offenses, and sentenced Davis to thirty-tsve years' im prisonm ent,w ith a11 but tw elve years and six m onths suspended. D avis did not appeal. On December12,2016,Davisfiled astatehabeaspetition inthe CampbellCounty CircuitCourt,but the courtdenied his petition on April 3,2017. Davis appealed,but the Suprem e Courtof Davis v. Booker Doc. 17 V irginia denied the appeal on October 24,2017,and his petition for rehearing on February 2, 2018.Davisfiled thecurrentpetition on M ay 7,2018,asserting two claim s: 1 Dockets.Justia.com Davis was denied due process of law when the governm entfailed to disdpse m aterial impeachment evidence of an elaborate schem e of criminalm isconductcanied outby Altavistapoliceofficersand informantsin drug-sting operations;and Davis was denied effective assistance of trialcotmselwhen his lawyer failed to (i) discover impeachment evidence and/or (ii) object to, challenge, or correct the governm ent'sbreach ofthe sentencingprovision ofhispleaagreement. The respondent submits that Davis'petition is tmtim ely,procedurally defaulted,and without m erit. II. T im e-Bar Davis's petition is time-barred. Under the Anti-terrorism Effective'Death Penalty Act (AEDPA),aone-yearperiodoflimitationforfederàlhabeascorpusnmsfrom thelatestof: (A)the date on which the judgmentbecnme finalby the conclusion of directreview ortheexpiration ofthetim eforseekingsuch review; (B)the date on which theimpedimentto filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution 'or laws of the United States is removed,ifthe applicantwaspreventedfrom filing by such Stateaction; '(C)the date on which the constitutional right asserted was irlitially recognized by the Suprem e Court,ifthe righthasbeen newly recognized by the Suprem e Courtand m ade retroactively applicableto caseson collateralreview ;or (D)the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented couldhavebeen discoveredthroughthe exerciseofduediligence. 28U.S.C.j2244(d)(1). A petitioner can Gttoll''the federalhabeas statute of lim itation in two ways:stam tory tolling and equitable tolling. Section 2244(d)(2)tollsthe federallimitation period during the tim e in which çça properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review . . . is pending.'' Equitable tolling occurs only if a petitioner shows ;G$(1)thathe has been pursuinghisrightsdiligently,and(2)thatsomeextraordinafy circumstancestoodinhisway'and prevented tim ely lling.'' Holland v.Florida,560 U.S.631,649 (2010) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo,544,U.S.408,418(2005( 9. Under j 2244(d)(1)(A),the statm e of limitations expired in 2016.1 However,Davis assertsseveralargum entsthathispetition isnottim e-barred: (1)statutorytolling' , (2)equitabletolling; a. continued failure ofCommonwea1th to disclosematerialevidence;and lack ofnotice;and lackofprejudicetotherespondent. SeePet'r'sResp.3-6,ECF N o.14. Hisargllmentsareincorrectforthereasonsthatfollow. D avis puts forth tw o statutory tolling argum ents. First,he assertsthathe discovered the factualpredicate ofhisclaimsin July 2016. However,even ifIacceptthatj 2244(d)(1)(D) restarted the statm e oflim itations on A ugust 1,2016,his petition is stilltim e-barred. A ssm ning the lim itationsperiod began on August1, 2016,2 133 daysran before Davisproperly filed astate habeaspetition in thecircuitcoul'ton Decem ber 12,2016.Davistim ely filed anoticeofappeal and requested an extension oftim e. The Supreme CourtofVirginia granted DavisuntilAugust 4,2017,tofilehishabeasappeal. Davis'shabeasappeal,however,did nottollthe limitationsperiod,because the Suprem e CourtofVirginia foundthatDavis'shabeasappealwasprocedtlrally barred forfailingto comply 1The circuit court entered Davis's sentence on January 20, 2015, and D avis did not appeal. Therefore,thejudgmentbecamefinalon February 19,2015.Va.Sup.Ct.R.5A:6(Noticeofappealmust befiled within thirty daysoffinaljudgment.);Gonzalez v.Thaler,565 U.S.134,149 (2012)(holding that,underj2244(d)(1)(A),thejudgmentbecomesfinal(Ewhenthetimeforpursuingdirectreview in (the SupremeCourq,orin statecourt,expires'').Davisthushad oneyear(365days)from February 19,2015 tofilehisj2254petition.ThelimitationsperiodexpiredonFebrualy 19,2016. 2Davisstatesthathe leanzed ofthem aterialin July 2016. Pet.14. with Va.Sup.Ct.R.5:17 (c)(1)(i). Davisv.Booker,No.171046,slip op.at 1(Va.Oct.24, 2017),ECF No.9-3;seealsoChristianv.Baskerville,232 F.Supp.2d605,607(E.D.Va.2001) (holdingthatttpetitioner'sappealofthedenialofhabeasrelief'wasçtnotproperlyfiledpm suant to j2244(d)(2)''becausethepetitioner(lfailedtomeettheform requirementsfol'properly tiling anappealintheSupremeCourtofVirginia''underVa.Sup.Ct.R.5:17(c));Escalantev.W atson, 488 Fed.App'x 694,697-98 (4th Cir.2012) (explicitly agreeing with Cluistian's logic and fnding thatpetitionsthatfailto comply with Va.Sup.Ct.R.5:17(c)do nottollthestatm e of limitationstmderj2244(d)(2)). The record shows thatDavis's state collateralproceedings tolled the limitations period from Decçmber 12,2016 untilAugust4,2017,when the time to properly file an appealexpired lmderVa.Sup.Ct.R.5:17. SeeVa.Sup.Ct.R.5:9. ,5:17 (requiring anotice ofappealwithin thirtydaysofjudgment,andapetition forappealwithinninety daysofjudgment).Thestatuteof lim itationsbegan to nm again on August5,2017. Accordingly,the lim ijations period expired 232 days later,on M arch 25,2018. Davisdid notfile his federalhabeaspetition tmtilM ay 7, 2018. Pet.14,ECF N o.1. ln hism otion to expatld the record,Davisallegesthatthe statute oflimitationsshould be resetto July 2018,becauseherecently received overathousand pagesofdocllm ents(Erelated to gthe)investigation oftheAPD3andgjprosecutionofAPD ChiefW alsh.''M ot.toExpandtheR. 2,ECFNo.15.Underj2244(d)(1)(D),Ctthefactualpredicateofapètitioner'sclaimsconstitutes the vitalfactstmderlying Ethejclaims,''notmerely çGevidence thatmightsupporthisclaims.'' M cAleesev.Brerman,483F.3d 206,214 (3d Cir.2007)(internalquotationmarksomitted);see also Jolmsonv.M cBride,381F.3d 587,589 (7th Cir.2004)(1(A desireto seemoreinformation inthehopethatsomethingwillt'ul' nup differsfrom (thefactualpredicateof(a1claim orclaims' 3AltavistaPolice Department. t$ forpurposesof j 2244(d)(1)(D).'');Flanagan v.Jolmson,154 F.3d 196,199 (5th Cir.1998) (Gssection 2244(d)(1)(D)doesnotconvey as'tatutory rightto extended delay ...whileahabeas petition gathersevery possible scfap ofevidencethatmight. . . supporthisclaim . ''). Davis fails to demonstrate why the lim itations period should be reset to 2018. The recently released files provide additional evidence thatDavis believes supports his claim that som e m embers of the APD,including the chief of police,w ere involved in illegal activity. However,the new docum entsdid notcreatenew groundsfora petition orshow thatany officer or confidential inform ant directly related to Davis's case was involved in illicit activities. Therefore,the 2018 disdostlre representsthe snm e factualpredicate asthe 2016 docum entsand did notresetthe stattlteoflimitations. See28 U.S.C.j2244(d)(1)(D);M cAleese,483 F.3d at 214. Furtherm ore,D avis fails to dem onstrate that he is entitled to equitable tolling. D avis statesthathisfailtlreto comply with Va.Sup.Ct.R.5:17(c)should equitablytollthestatuteof lim itations. However,procedtlralerrors are generally notextraordinary circumstances extelmal to aparty'scontrol. Rousev.Lee,339F.3d 238,248(4th Cir.2003)(collecting casesholding thatattorney error,including m iscalculation ofappealtim elines,does notpresentextraordinary circllmstancesbeyond aparty'scontrol);seeUnited Statesv.Sosa,364 F.3d 507,512 (4th Cir. 2004)(collectingcasesholdingthatGsignoranceofthe1aw isnotabasisforequitabletollinf). Lastly,Davishasnotallegedafundamentalmiscaniageofjustice.Hehasnotpresented evidence dem onstrating his acttzalinnocence and, liberally construing his petition,he m erely allegesthatsome inaterialshould have been disclosed and/orsuppressed,and thatcotmselfailed to discover im peachm entevidence or challenge a portion ofthe plea agreem ent. H ow ever,the sem inal ttactual innocence'' cases relied on com pelling evidence of actual innocence. See Bousley,523 U.S.614,623 (1998)(holding thatCiçactualizmocence'meansfacmalinnocence, notm ere legalinsufficiency.'').Therefore,Davis'spetition istim e-barred.4 111. For the foregoing reasons, grant Petitioner's m otion to expand the records and Respondent'sm otion to dismissand dism issthepetition forawritofhabeascorpus. Based upon my finding that Petitioner has not m ade the requisite substantial show ing of a denial of a constitutionalrightasrequiredby28U.S.C.j2253(c),acertificateofappealabilityisdenied. ENTERED this Q day ofNovember, 2018. ., j? u q SEN I R c ITED STA TES D ISTR ICT JUD GE 4 Inote that Davis's claim s are also procedurally barred from federalhabeas review . Claim s 1 and 2(ii)are procedurally barred because hefailed to comply with Va.Sup.Ct.R.5:17(c)in hisstate collateralproceedings.SeeHedrickv.True,443F.3d342,360(4th Cir.2006)(Va.Sup.ct.R.5:17(c)is an independentandadequatestate ground forproceduraldefault). Claim 2(i)isexhausted butdefaulted because D avis failed to raise the claim in state courtand cannotnow rettzrn to state courtto exhaustit. SeeBakerv.Corcoran,220 F.3d 276,288 (4th Cir.2D00)((W claim thathasnotbeen presented to the highest state court nevertheless m ay be treated as exhausted if it is clear that the claim would be procedurally barredunderstate 1aw ifthe petitionerattemptedto presentittothestatecourt.'l. Further, Davis fails to excuse the defaults. First,he has not alleged a colorable claim of actual innocence. Second,hehasnotdemonstrated causeand prejudice. In hisresponsetothemotiontodismiss,Davis assel'tsthathispetitionisnotprocedurallybarredbecausetheelementsofcauseandprejudicetdparallel and are parasitic to the elem ents of a Brady claim itself.'' Resp.to M ot.to Dism iss 10. Such a bare assertion isnotsufficientto demonstratecauseand prejudice. Nickersonv.Lee.971F.2d 1125,1135 (4thCir.1992)overnlledonothergroundsbyYeattsv.Angelone,166F.3d255(4thCir.1999)(ahabeas petitionermustprofferevidencetosupporthisclaims). Additionally,the petition ism eritless.ln Claim 1,thestatecourtcorrectly ruled thatthe Supreme Courthasneverrequired the disclosure ofm aterialim peachm entevidencepriorto aplea agreem ent. See United States v.Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 633 (2002). Claim 2(i) is without merit because the APD investigation did notend untilafterthe trial. Counselisnotconstittltionally required to predictthatsom e policeofficersfrom oneoftheinvestigatingjurisdictionswouldbeindictedforillegalacts. SeeW aidav. United States,64 F.3d 385,388 (8th Cir.1995)(holding counselnotineffective for(Tailing to predict f'uturedevelopmentsin the law''). Lastly,Claim 2(ii)iswithoutmeritbecausethe sGte courtcorrectly found that the trial court sentenced Davis consistently w ith the plea agreement according to the guidelinescalculated by theA dultProbation and Parole Office. Counselcannotbe ineffective forfailing . to raiseameritlessargument.SeeUnited Statesv.Kimler,l67F.3d889,893(5th Cir.1999). 51reviewed Davis'sadditionalsubmittedmaterials(ECF No.15)in determining thathispetition wastim e-barred. 6
]]>
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.
