Woods v. Clarke, No. 7:2018cv00385 - Document 16 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 9/25/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFICEU.S.DlsI COURI AT ROANOC ,VA FILED IN TH E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT O F W RGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION LA M O N T A .W O O D S, SEP 25 2218 JULIA .DUD - ,C RK BY: ' CA SE N O .7:18CV 00385 Petitioner, V. M EM O R AN D UM O PIN ION H A R O LD W .CL AR K E, By: H on.G len E.C onrad Senior U nited StatesD istrictJudge R espondent. Petitioner Lnm ont A.W oods,through counsel,filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus,plzrsuantto28U.S.C.j2254,challengingthevalidity ofhisconsnementundera2015 Virginiacourtjudgmentconvictingllim ofsecond-degreemurder.Thematterispresentlybefore the courton therespondent'sm otion to dism issand W oods'responsethereto. Forthereasonsset forth below,thecourtconcludesthattherespondent'sm otion to dism issm ustbeg' ranted. 1.BACKGROUND TheCourtofAppealsofVirginiafound thefollowing factsfrom theevidencepresented at ' F oods'jurytrial. 'l Woods v. Clarke Toward theend ofApril2012,gW oodsl'relationshipwith hisgirlfriend, TakeaTurner(T1lrner),seriouslydeteriorated.EW oodsltestifiedthatheassumed thatTllrnerandLnmarW ard(thevictim)wereromanticallyinvolved.Turnerand (W oods)had been living togetherin Henry County tmtilafew daysbeforethe killing.OnApril27,2012,Turnerandherirtfantson(Baby W oods)stayedwith her friend,M anesha W ard (lM aneshaq),atthe home of (M aneshaq and her boyfriend,Dacha Fitzgerald (Fitzgerald). The victim,who is (M aneshaq's brother,also stayed atgM aneshaj'shousethatnight. (W oodsjtestifed thaton thatsnmenight,thevictim andTurnerrepeatedlycalledandthreatened (W oods) while hewasGshanging out''with severalpeople,including Kelly Trull(Tnz11), who corroborated thisaccount. (W oods)also testifed thatFitzgerald and the victim cnmeto (W oodsl'shouseto threaten him thenightbeforethe shooting occurred- andthat(W oodsjthenranawayfrom them intothewoods. Doc. 16 l Thecourtofappealsstated the factsin thelightmostfavorableto W oodsin addressing hisclaim oftrial com'terrorduringjuryinstructions. Dockets.Justia.com DetailsSurrotmdingtheM tlrder On themorning ofApril28,2012 (thedayofthemurder),Tllrnertexted gW oods) some messages that he characterized as threatening. (M anesha), Fitzgerald,the victim ,Turner,and Baby W oods then drove to and arrived at EW oodsj'traileringManeshal'svehicle.(M anesha)drove,Ttmlersatinthefront passengerseat,theyictim satin the leftrearpassengerseat,Fitzgerald satin the rightrearpassengerseat,andBabyW oodswasseatedonTumer'slap. (W oodsj testified thathe wasthen weadnghisgun holsteredbecausehethoughthewould be leaving before Turneranived. Turnerexited the carand began arguing with EW oodsl. Thevictim then began spenkingfrom thebackseat,sayingthingslike GtFuck him''and $&Ifhe gotaproblem,then he can do something.'' (W oodsj testified thatitwasatthispointthatherealizedthevictim wasactually inthe car and thatthey began arguing. - (W oods)thenprovidedhisaccountofwhathappenednext,stating,Gtsoas weare arguing,1am walking towardsthecar. So when Iwalked towardsthe car, yea,1wastellinghim to getoutthecar....Ifhehad aproblem with me,then 1 waswillingto fightitoutand getitoverwith.'' (W oodsqsaidthathisintention wasonly to engagein afstfight.EGSO asl'm getting closertothecar,that'swhen hepullshisgtm out.''(W oodsqsaidofthevictim,&1Hebasicallyjustflashed (his gunloutofthewindow. Hewasstillinthecaratthetime.'' (W oodsjtestified thatafterthevictim flashedthegtm with hisrighthand,IGSOthat'swhen lkind of slidbehindthet' reeand1kindofaskedhim toleave....''gW oods)furthertestified that he herd car doors opening and shutting, and he heard the victim say somethingthreateningandtell(W oods)tocomeoutfrom behindthetree.çGsoas Icome behind thetree:atthistim e,Ihad pulled my gtm outofm y holster,so as Icom ebelzind thetree,hehad hisgun kind oflike,itwasup by hisside. Hewas standing outside ofthe car,buthe was stillin the doorway,kind'm'' Cotmsel asked(W oods),(GSOhewasinbetweenthedoorandwhereitwasopen?''(W oods) responded,Etltight. So aslcom ebehind thet' ree,...heraiseshisgtm,and that's whenIjuststartedshooting,runningtowardsthewoods.'' W henaskedwhetherheshotatthevictim tentimes,gW oodslresponded, GiM aybe.I' m notsure. Ifearedformy life,so Ijustwasn'tcounting. 1wasn't reallyaiming.Ijustdirectedtheguninhisdirectionand1won'tgsiclreallytrying topurposefullykillllim ornothinglikethat.Iwasjusttryingtogetoutofthere.'' (W oodsladmittedthatnooneelsefredashot,anddidnotdisputethateveryshot hefiredllitthevictim.(W oodsjtestifedthathewasafraidofthevictim Gçbecause ofhisreputation and thetk eatsthathemadeoverthephone.''Heknew thatthe victim tookagtm Fithhim everywherehewent.(W oodsqdidnotdisputethathe shotthroughthecar'sbackwindshield.Fitzgeraldtestifedthathesaw EW oodsj shootingthevictim through therearwindow ofthe car. Fitzgerald also testified thathe exited thecarand ran to thewoodswhen gW oodsjbegan shooting the victim . 2 Soonaftertheshooting,(Maneshaqcalled9-1-1,informingthem thather brother had been shot and was notbreathing. The phone callthen suddenly terminated on the caller'send. Alfred Lem ons,an eyewitnessto the subsequent caraccident,testifiedthatheobservedacar(laterdeterminedtobe EM aneshal's vehicle)drivebyhim,skidofftheroad,andhitatree.(M anesha),Tumer,Baby W oods,and the victim 's body were thrown from the vellicle,killing a11ofthe livingpassengers. Uncontroverted PhysicalEvidence AssistantClliefM edicalExnminerGayleSuzukitestifiedthatthevictim 's cause ofdeath wasmultiple gtmshotwounds. The victim received ten gunshot wotmds - three of which were lethal. A11three lethalgtmshotwounds were consistentwith being shotin theback. In fact,(W oodsqhimselfacknowledged thatoverhalfofthe shotsfired were fired f' rom bellind the victim . Dr.Stlzuki testised thatthe superficialinjtlriesthevictim received in the car crash were sustained post-m ortem . W endy Gibson - a forensic scientistwith the Departm entofForensic Science and an expertin identitkation of firearms and toolm arks- testified, ûr tlring the course of this analysis,lwas able to identify thatallten ofthese cartridge cases (folmd atthe scene)had been fired in one firearm.'' Al1ten cartridge caseswerethesam ebrand and caliber. Further,each ofthefivebullets recovered f' rom the victim 's body wasconsistentin design with the brand and caliberoftheten cartridge casesand wassredfrom onefirearm . W oodsv.Commonwealth,782S.E.2d613,615-16(Va.Ct.App.2016).2 OnM ay21,2012,agrandjuryintheCircuitCout'tofHenryCountyretum edindictments charging LnmontM thony W oodswith first-degreem urder,grand larceny ofa firearm ,use ofa fireann in the comm ission of a felony,m aliciously shooting into an occupied vehicle, and endangeringthelife ofachild.W oodspleaded notguilty to the firstfourchargesand proceeded to ajurytrial. The courtgranted W oods'requestforajury instnzction forthelesserincluded offense of second-degree m tlrderand forself-defense. The courtfound thatthe evidence did not supportan instnlction forthelesserincluded offenseofvoluntary manslaughter,however. 2 çdln reviewing a habeaspetition, federalcourtsmustpresumethe correctnessofa state court's facmal determinationsunlessthehabeaspetitionerrebutsthepresumption ofcorrecmessbyclearandconvincingevidence.'' Greenv.Johnson,515F.3d290,299(4thCir.2008). ThejuryfotmdW oodsguiltyofsecond-degreemtlrder,useofafirearm inthecommission ofafelony,and maliciously shootinginto an occupied vehicle,butacquitted llim ofgrand larceny. Thejttry setW oods'ptmishmentattwelveyearsinprisonforthemtlrderconviction,threeyears and fiveyearson otherconvictions,foratotaloftwenty years.. By orderdated January 14,2015, thecircuitcourthnposedthesentencesfixedbythejury.Thecircuitcourtalso sentencedW oods thatday forthe child endangerm entcharge,to which W oodshadpleaded no contest. W oodsappealed hissecond-degreem urderconviction,3arguingthatthetrialcourterred in denying a jury instruction forvoluntary manslaughter. ln a published opinion,the Courtof AppealsofVirginiaaffirm ed W oods'conviction.W oodsv.Com mönwea1th,782 S.E.2d613,615 (Va.Ct.App.2016).TheSupremeCourtofVirginiarefusedhissubsequentpetitionforappealin thatcourtin asumm ry order. W oodsthen fled a petition fora writofhabeascorpusin the Suprem e CotlrtofVirginia. TheCourtconstruedthepetitionasraisingthesetwoclaims:(1)trialcotmselprovidedineffective assistancebyfailingtoinvestigateandobtainwitnessesandcellphoneevidencetobolsterW oods' trialtestimonythatheshotthevictim outoffearforhisliferatherthan outofmalice,and(2)the Com monwea1th withheld exculpatory evidencelikely contained on oneormorecellphoneslikely recoveredfrom thesceneofthefatalcarcrashthatoccurredaftertheshooting.The Suprem eCourt ofVirginiadenied reliefon both claim s.M em .Supp.M ot.Dism .Ex.16,ECF N o.7-16. W oods'federalhabeascorpuspetition itselfraisestheseoverlapping claim sforrelief,as paraphrased by the court: (A) W oods'guilty plea wasnotvoluntary and intelligent,because llis trial cotmselprovided incom petentadviceand conducted an inadequatepretrial investigation to supportW oods'testimony; 3 W oodsdid notappealhisotherconvictions. (B) Trialcotmselprovided ineffective assistance by failing to prepare and iGproperlyestablishW oods'stateofm indatthetimeoftheshootingasbeing in fearofhisown life''; (C) Trial cotmsel provided ineffective assistance by failing tlto properly impeach theComm onwealth'sm ain witness,DachaFitzgerald;and (D) TheCommonwea1th withheld exculpatory evidenceby notdisclosingthe information about the victim 's cellphone text messages in violation of Bradyv.M arvland.373U.S.83(1963). Pet.6-7,ECF N o. 1. W oods'm em orandum in supportof his petition,ECF N o.1-1,how ever, discussesonly thetwohabeasclaim saddressed by the Supreme CourtofVirginiain statehabeas proceedings.Asrelief,W oodsasksthecourtto çGovertut'n hisconvictions.'' M em .Supp.Pet.23, ECF N o.1-1. Therespondenthasfiled am otion to dismiss,and W oodshasresponded,m aking thematterripefordisposition. 1l. D ISCUSSION A.PxocedtlralDefault &<(A1federalcourtmay notgrantam itofhabeascorpusto apetitionerin statecustody unlessthepetitionerhasfrstexhausted hisstaterem ediesbypresenting hisclaim stothehighest statecourt.''Bakerv.Corcoran,220F.3d276,288(4th Cir.2000)(citing28U.S.C.j22540941); O'Sullivanv.Boerckel,526U.S.838,842 (1999)).Theexhaustionrequirementin j2254419 requires a federal habeas petitioner to provide the state courts with a GGfair opporttmity''to apply controlling legalprinciples to the facts bearing upon his constim tionalclaim . Itis notenough thata11the facts necessary to supportthe federalclaim were before the state courts,orthata som ewhatsimilar state-law claim wasm ade.In addition,thehabeaspetitionermusthaveEGfairly presented''to the state courts the ççsubstance''oflzis federalhabeas corpus claim . Andersonv.Harless,459U.S.4,6(1982).4 4 The courthas omitted internal quotation marks,alterations,and citations here and throughout this memorandum opinion,unlessotherwisenoted. 5 Evenwherethepetitionerhascompleted hisdirectappealsandhabeasrem ediesinthestate courts,federalreview ofhis.52254 claimsmaybeprocedurallybarred.Ifastatecourtexpressly bases its dism issalof a claim on the petitioner's default of a state proceduralrule,and that proceduralnlleprovidesan independentand adequategroundforthedismissal,thefederalhabeas version ofthatclaim isalso procedurallybaaed.Breard v.Pruett,134 F.3d 615,619 (4th Cir. 1998). Similarly,ifthepetitionerhasnotpresentedaclaim orpartofaclaim tothestatecourts, butwouldclearlybebarredbyan independentand adequatestateprocedttralrulefrom havingthat claim adjudicatednow ifhereturnedto statecourt,theclaim isprocedurallyban'ed from federal habeasreview.Bassettev.Thompson,915F.2d932,936 (4thCir.1990)(citingTeacuev.Lane, 489U.S.288(1989)).A federalhabeascourtmayreview themeritsofaprocedmallydefaulted claim onlyifççtheprisonercandemonstratecauseforthedefaultandactualprejudiceasaresultof thealleged violation offederallaw ,ordemonstratethatfailureto considertheclaim swillresultin aflmdnmentalmiscnrriageofjustice.''Colemanv.Thompson,501U.S.722,750(1991),holding m odified pq othergrotmdshyM art inezv.Rvan,566U.S.1(2012). . TherespondentarguesthatW oods'Claim (A),challengingthevalidity ofhisguiltyplea tothechargeofendangeringachild,andClaim (C),allegingcotmsel'sfailtlretoproperlyimpeach a witness,are tmexhausted and procedurally ban'ed f' rom federalhabeasreview .s Recordsfrom the Suprem eCourtofVirginia reiectthatW oods'statehabeaspetition did notincludeany claim thatllis guilty plea to the child endangerm ent charge was invalid, That petition also did not com plain abouttrial counsel's advice regarding the plea or about cotm sel's alleged failtlre to effectively impeach Fitzgerald. Thus,the courtconcludes that W oods failed to give the state 5TherespondentconcedesthatClaim (B)isbothexhaustedandnotprocedurallydefaulted,becauseW oods presenteditto theSupremeCourtofVirginiaon directappeal. habeas courtan opportunity to address the substance ofthese claim s before sling llis federal petition.Therefore,hedidnotexhausthisstatecourtremediesastoClaims(A)and(C)asrequired tmderj225409. W oodswould now be precluded 9om presenting these claim s in state court. Va.Code Ann. jj8.01-654(A)(2), -654(B)(2). These Virginia Code sections, setting the statute of limitationsforbringing a state habeasclaim,andrequiring ahabeaspetitionerto bring in hisfirst petition all allegations lcnown to him at that time,are both adequate and independent state procedm alrules.Bassette,915F.2dat937(regarding j8.01-654(B)(2));Sparrow v.Dir..Dep't of Corrs., 439 F. Supp. 2d 584, 587-88 (E.D. Va. 2006) (regarding j8.01-654(A)(2)). Accordingly,thecourtconcludesthatClaims(A)alzd (C)areprocedurally barred from federal review absentashowing ofcauseandprejudice,oramiscaniageofjustice.6 Bassette,915F.2d at936.W oodsdoesnotattemptto show causeforhisdefaultofthese claim s. TherespondentalsocontendsthatalthoughW oodspresentedClaim (D)tothestatecourts, it is procedurally defaulted. In the state habeas proceedings,the Supreme Courtof Virginia sllm matizedthisclaim asfollows' . (W oodsqspeculatesthepolicemusthaverecovered oneormorecellphonesused by Ttlm er,W ard,and W ard's sister,M anesha,and he further speculates one of these phones might have been the one W ard and Turner used to send him threateningtextmessages. gW oods)basestlzisspeculationon evidencethat,after (he)shotW ard,M aneshaspedawayfrom thesceneinhercarwithTurner,Turner's baby,and W ard'sbody. M om entslater,M anesha,Turner,and thebaby were all ldlled in acrash. The policeinvestigated the scene ofthefatalcrash. (W oodsq alleges the records of the textm essages from W ard's phone would have been exculpatorybecausetheywouldhaveshown (W oods')stateofmindwhenheshot W ard. 6 W oodsassertsin hispleadingsthathe hasRexhausted''hisstatecourtremedies. Heoffersno evidence, however,to contradictthe Supreme CourtofVirginiarecords thatreflectotherwise. The com'talso notesthatin Woods'j2254petition,hemerelylistsClaims(A)and(C)intheform petition,withoutpresentinganyfactualsupport forthem .Accordingly,hehasnotdemonstratedany entitlementtoreliefonthesegrounds,evenabsenthisprocedural default. M em .Supp.M ot.Dism .Ex.16, at 2,ECF N o.7-16. The Courtfotmd thatthe claim was procedurally defaulted tmdertherule in Slayton v.Parriaan,205 S.E.2d 680,682 (Va.1974), stating thattçbecause thisnon-jurisdictionalissue could have been raised attrialand on direct appeal...,(itjisnotcognizablein apetition forawritofhabeascorpus.'' Id. Slayton isan independentandadequatestateprocedtlralnzle.Btlrketv.Angelone,208F.3d 172,191(4th Cir. 2000).Accordingly,thecourtconcludesthatClaim (D)isprocedurallybarredfrom federalreview absentashowingofcauseandprejudice,oramiscaniageofjustice. To establish CGcause,''thepetitionermustGûshow thatsomeobjectivefactorextemaltothe defenseimpeded(lliszeffortstocomplywith theState'sprocedtlrall'ule.A factorisexternal... ifitcannotfairly beattributedto theprisoner.''Davilav.Davis, U.S. ,137 S.Ct.2058,2065 (2017). W oodscontendsthatineffectiveassistanceofcounseldtlringpretrialpreparationregarding thecellphoneevidence,asallegedinllisClaim (B),causedthedefaultoftheBradvclaim illClaim (D). ççrAltlorney errorisan objectiveextemalfactorprovidingcauseforexcusing aprocedlzral defaultonly ifthaterrornm otmtedto adeprivation ofthe constimtionalrightto counsel.'' Id. As herein discussed in addressing W oods'Claim (B)on itsmerits,W oodshasnotestablishedthat counsel'srepresentation rose to the levelofa constitutionalviolation. Therefore,the courtalso concludesthatW oodshasfailedtoshow causefordefaultofClaim (D).? 1 In addition, Claim (D)ismeri tless.TosucceedonaBradyclaim,thedefendantsmustestablishthatçtthe evidencewas(1)favorabletotheaccused,(2)suppressedbythegovernment,and(3)materialtotheverdictattrial.'' Nicolasv.Attomey GeneralofM aryland,820 F.3d 124,129 (4th Cir.2016). W oods'bald assertion thatthe Commonwealth likelyobtainedthetextmessages9om W ard'scellphonecannotestablish aBradyviolation.United Statesv.Yotma.916F.3d368,383(4thCir.2019)(holdingthatdefendanthadRofferednothingbutrankspeculation astothenatureoftheallegedlysuppressedmaterials,whichcannotestablishaBradv violation'');United Statesv. Stokes,261F.3d496,502 (4thCir.2001)(notingthattoproveaBradyviolation,thedefendantmustshow thatRthe prosecutionhadthe(purportedlywithheldmaterials)andfailedtodisclosethem''). W oods'conclusory allegationsaboutthesuppression ofcellphoneevidencearealso insuffkienttowarrant an evidentiaryhearinginthiscourt. Nickerson v.Lee,971F.2d 1125,1136 (4thCir.1992)(recognizingthatRto obtainanevidentiaryhearing...onanyclaiml,)ahabeaspetitionermustcomefom ardwithsomeevidencethatthe W oodsalso assertsthathisprocedtlraldefaultsshouldbeexcused tmderthem iscarriageof justiceexception,basedoncotmsel'sallegedlyinadequateinvestigationofthecellphoneevidence asallegedinClaim (B). SeePet.Opp'n 3,ECF No.11.Themiscaniageofjusticeexceptionto default requires a colorable showing that based on new evidence not presented at trial, &Ea constimtionalviolation hasprobably resulted in the conviction ofonewho isacm ally innocent.'' M un' avv.Canier,477U.S.478,496 (1986);Schlupv.Delo,513 U.S.298,327(1995)(holding thatacttzalinnocencecontentionto open aGlgateway''throughproceduraldefaultrequiresshowing thatIiitismorelikelythan notthatnoreasonablejtlrorwouldhaveconvidedhim in thelightof thenew evidence'). W oodsapparently contendsthatin lightofthecellphone evidencenotintroduced attrial, no reasonablejtlrorwould haveconvicted him ofsecond-degreemtlrder,and wouldhaveopted instead to convicthim ofvoluntary manslaughterorto acquithim on self-defensegrounds. This argument is foreclosed by the court's conclusion that W oods has not established ineffective assistanceasallegedinClaim (B).Toprovethatcounsel'srepresentation wassodefectiveasto require reyersalofa conviction,the petitionerm ustmeeta two-pronged standard,showing that, cotmsel'stmreasonably deficientperformanceresulted in prejudice. Strickland v.W ashington, 466 U.S.668,687 (1984). To meetthe Strickland prejudicerequirement,thepetitionermust demonstratethatbutforcounsel'sunprofessionalerrors,there isareasonable probability thatthe outcomeatt'rialwould havebeen different. l( . laat694.Thecourtherein determinesthatW oods failsto show prejudice underthe reasonable probability standard of Strickland, Because the claim mighthavemerit.Unsupported,conclusoryallegationsdonotentitleapetitionertoanevidentiaryhearingn), abroc'npqotherroundsrecoc'd,Yeatt sv.Almelone,166F. 3d255(4thCir.1999).Moreover2therecorddoesnot . reflectthatW oodsmovedinthestatecourthabeasproceedingforfactualdevelopmentofthisclalm .Juniperv.Zook, 876F.3d551,564 (4thCir.2017)(holdingthattowarrantevidentiaryhearingon j2254claim,Rlaltaminimum,a diligentpetitionermustseekanevidentlaryhearinginstatecourtinthemannerprescribedbystatelaw''). Gûrequisite probability''forthe actualinnocence gateway requiresGEa stronger showing than that neededtoestablishprejudice''underStrickland,W oodshasnotopenedthatgateway.Schlup,513 U.S.at327. Forthestated reasons,the courtconcludesthatW oodshasprocedtlrally defaulted Claim s (A),(C),and (D)and failsto show cause and prejudice forthosedefaultsoracttlalinnocence. Therefore,thecourtwillgrantthem otion'to dismissasto these claims. B. The FederalHabeasReview Standard Under28U.S.C.j2254(*,thefederalhabeascourtmaynotgrantawritofhabeascorpus basedonany claim thatastatecourtdecidedonthemeritstmlessthatadjudication: Resulted in a decision thatwas contrary to,orinvolved an um easonable application of, cleady established Federal law, as determ ined by the Supreme CottrtoftheUnited States;or (2) Resultedin adecisionthatwasbasedonanllnreasonabledetermination of thefactsin lightoftheevidencepresented inthe Statecourtproceeding. 28U.S.C.j2254(* ;seealsoW illinmsv.Taylor,529U.S.362,403-13(2000).tGW here,ashere, the state court's application ofgoverning federallaw is challenged,itm ustbe shown to be not only erroneous,butobjectively unreasonable.'' Yarborough v.Gentry,540 U.S.1,5 (2003). Underthisstandard,:$(a)statecourt'sdetermination thata claim lacksmeritprecludesfederal habeasreliefso long asfair-mindedjuristscoulddisagreeon thecorrectnessofthe statecourt's decision.''Harringlonv.Richter,562U.S.86,101(2011). BecausetheCourtofAppealsofVirginiaadjudicatedW oods'Claim (B)onthemeritsin habeas proceedings, this courtm ust apply the deferential standard of review m andated by j2254(* .Thecourtofappeals'decision affrmingW oods'conviction isthelastreasonedstate courtopinion' ,thus,thiscourtGûlooksthrough''the Suprem eCourtofVirginia'srefusalorderand reviewsthereasoning ofthecourtofappeals. W ilson v.Sellers,138 S.Ct.1188,1193 (2018)9 10 Y1stv.Nlmnemaker,501U.S.797,803 (1991)(holdingthatfederalhabeascourtmustpresume that Gtlwjhere there has been one reasoned state judgment rejecting a federal claim,later unexplained ordersupholding thatjudgmentor rejecting the snme claim restupon the snme ground''). C. IneffectiveAssistanceofCounsel. In addressing W oods'Claim (B),thecourtmustapply thetwo-partStrickland standard: deficientperfor'm anceandresultingprejudice. 466U.S.at687.First,thepetitionermustshow thatl:cotmsel'srepresentation fellbelow an objective standard ofreasonableness,''considering circllmstancesand factsknown to counselatthattime. Ld-aat687-88. Tllisshowing' requires evidencethatcotmsel'senorswere so seriousthathewasnotftllfilling hisrolein the adversarial process envisioned by the Sixth Am endment's fair trial guarantee. 1d. The petitioner must overcom e a strong presllmption thatcotmsel'sperformance waswithin the range ofcompetence demandedfrom attorneysdefendingcriminalcases.Ld.u sat689. Second,thepetitionermustdem onstrate $Ga reasonableprobability that,butforcounsel's mp rofessional errors,the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability isaprobability suffk ientto tm dermine confidencein the outcom e.'' Id.at694. Giltis notenough to show thaterrorshad some conceivable effecton the outcom eoftheproceeding.'' Harrinaton,562 U .S.at104. Ifthepetitionerfailsto satisfy eitherprong,hisclaim fails without needforfurtherinquiry.Id-at697. TheCourtofAppealsofVirginiamlmmarizedandanalyzedW ood:'Claim (B)asfollows: gW oodsl contends he was denied the effective assistance of counselbecause cotmselfailed to conducta reasonable investigation. (W oodslalleges counsel failed to interview w itnessesorto obtain evidencerelating to phonecalls and text messagesexchanged between gW oodsj,the victim,LnmarW ard,and gW oodsl's estrangedgirlfriend,TakeaTurner,shortlybeforetheoffenses.(W oodslcontends thathad cotm selobtained W ard's cellphone records,they w ould have supported 11 (W oods'qtestimony thathereceived threatening callsand textsfrom W ard and TtmAershortly beforetheshooting andthathewasin fearforlzislifewhen heshot and killed gW ardq,thus negating the Commonwealth's evidence of malice. (W oodsqallegesTurnerandW ardsenthim multipletextmessagesthattGincluded imm inentthreatstom ylifeandperson''theday beforeandtheday oftheshooting. The Courtholds (thisclaimj satisfiesneitherthe çGperformance''northe GGprejudice''prong (tmder Strickland). EW oods)failsto identify the witnesses counsel should have interviewed or to articulate what useful information any interviews would have yielded. Similady, (W oods) fails to proffer the text m essages he contends counselshould have obtained,nor has he described the contentofthemessages,saveto say thattheyincludedthreats.Further,therecord, including thetrialtranscriptand theaffidavitofcotmsel,demonstratesgW oodsj admittedattrialthathedid notsavethetextmessages,despiteclaim ingthey caused him to fearW ard. In addition,EW oods'qcotmselaversthathediscussed thetext messageswithgW oodsj,mld(W oodsjGtwasconcernedthatsomeofthetextscould come offasaggressive on hispartand counterto otlrself-defense defense.'' Due tothatconcem andthatseveralwitnessesconfirmed (W oods)andW ardhadbeen textingtV aheatedfashion,''rW oodsjand counselagreedtoavoidprocmingthe specitk messages.(W oodslhasnotcontradictedcounsel'sexplanationforwhyhe didnotptlrsuethetextmessages. Accordingly,(W oodsjhasfailedtoadequately substantiatehisallegation thatthe textm essageswould have aided hisdefenseor to show thatcotmselacted tmreasonably in deciding notto procttre them essages. Thus,(W oodsjhasfailedto demonstratethatcounsel'sperformancewasdefcient orthatthere is a reasonable probability that,butforcotmsel's alleged errors,the resultoftheproceeding would havebeen different. M em .Supp.M ot.Dism .Ex.16,at1-2,ECF No.7-16. The courtagrees thatW oods has failed to demonstrate an objectively umvasonable perform anceby counsel.Atthem ost,W oodsclaim sthatW m'd,viatextmessages,m adçimm inent threats to W oods'life. W ithout a particularized description ofthe evidence counselfailed to obtain,the courtcannotassess eithercounsel's alleged deficiency in failing to obtain itorthe likelihoodthatprejudiceresultedfrom thatomission. Beaverv.Thompson,93F.3d 1186,1195 (4thCir.1996)(holdingthatfailuretoprofferwhatfavorableevidenceortestimonycounselshould haveproducedisfataltoallegationofinadequateinvestigation). In addition, cotlrt records reflect that W oods' counsel Eled a discovery motion that included a demand forallBrady m aterial,which would have encom passed any exculpatory cell 12 phone content,had the Comm onwea1th procured any.8 W oods complainsthatthe prosecution m adeeffectiveuseofthedefense'slack ofdirectcellphone evidence,including the contentofthe textm essages,to undercutW oods'credibility when he introduced no cellphone evidenceofhis own. W oods,nothiscounsel,deleted thetextmessagesfrom W oods'own cellphone,however. Because otherwitnesses'testimony bolstered W oods'accountofreceiving heated textm essages f' rom W ard,cellphonecalling recordsalonewould have been merely cumulative evidence. The courtconcludesthatW oodssimplyhasnotstatedevidencesuffcientto overcom ethepresllm ption thathiscounsel's strategic decisionswith regard to thecellphone evidence fellwitllin the scope ofreasonable professionalperformance. Yarborough,540 U.S.at8 Cûl-he Sixth Amendment guaranteesreasonablecompetence,notperfectadvocacyjudgedwiththebenefk ofhindsight.'); Shaikhv.Johnson,No.1:08CV1286,2010W L 2039016,at*9 (E.D.Va.M ay20,2010)(finding thatpetitionerfailedto overcomepresllmption thatcotmselmadeGûsound tacticaldecision''where unpresented evidence çûrepresented a two-edged sword that colmsel often confront when constmctingthestrategymostlikelytoassistratherthanhnmm aclienf). ThecourtalsoagreesthatW oodshasnotestablishedprejudiceunderStrickland,resulting f' rom counsel's failureto procure the cellphone data ortextm essage content. W oodscontends thatwith the cellphone evidence,he mighthave persuaded thejudge to give a voluntary manslaughterinstruction orthejurymighthaveacquittedhim ofthemtlrderchargeupon finding thathe acted in self-defense. To meethis btlrden on prejudice,W oodsmustshow thatthe exculpatory value of the cell phone evidence, evaluated relative to inculpatory value of prosecution's evidence,w as ç&reasonably likely''to place the whole case in such a differentlight 8 W oodsprovidesthiscourtwith evidencethatmanycellphoneserviceprovidersdo notretain thecontent oftextmessages,andthosethatdo retain content,do soforno morethan amonth. W oodshasnotdemonstratedthat counsèlwasappointed and apprised oftheimportanceofthe textmessage contentin timeto havesubpoenaed text messagecontent9om serviceproviders,asW oodsallegesthatheshouldhavedone. 13 astotmdermineconfidenceintheverdict.Strickland,466U.S.at696.W oodshasnotcaniedthis burden. Second-degreemurder,ofwhich thejury found W oodsguilty,isçça maliciouslcilling.'' W oods, 782 S.E.2d at 617. To be malicious,the crim inal Gsact m ust be done wilfully or purposefully.''Id. M alice is Etevidenced eitherwhen the accused acted with a sedate,deliberate mind,and form ed design,orcommitted anypurposefuland cruelactwithoutany orwithoutgreat provocation.''J#a Voluntarym anslaughteristheunlawf'ulkilling ofanother,comm itted inthe courseofa sudden quarrel,ormutualcombat,orupon a sudden provocation,and without any previous grudge,and the killing isfrom the sudden heatofpassion growingsolely outofthequarrel,orcombat,orprovocation....Itexcludesm alice when provocation reasonably produces fear or anger that causes one to act on im pulsewithoutconsciousreflection. J4. By contrast,whenmakingapleaofself-defense, adefendantimplicitly adm itsthekillingwasintentionaland assum estheburden of introducingevidenceofjustificationorexcusethatraisesareasonabledoubtinthe mindsofthejtlrors.Thebarefearofseriousbodilyinjtlry,orevendeath,however well-grotmded,willnotjustifythetalcingofhuman life.Theremustalsobesome overtactindicativeofimminentdangeratthetime. ' Commonwea1thv.Carv,623S.E.2d906,912 (Va.2006). ln W oods'case,the evidenceofmalicewasoverwhelm ing. By hisown testim ony,after receiving the textm essages,knowing thatW ard alwayscazried his gtm with him ,W oodstook a loaded gtm,approached W ard'scar,and dem anded thatW ard getoutand fighthim . M oreover, the physicalevidence showed thatW oodsGred ten roundsatW ard from beside and behind the car;each rolmd struck thevictim . W ard wasshotfvetim esin the back and once in the back of the nrm .Onthisevidence,thecourtofappealsfotmdthatW oodstiexerted greatcarein aiming at (W ard)and shooting him,which contradicts (W oodsqtheory thatllisreason wasovercome by fer '' W oods,782 S.E.2d at618. Even ifthe textmessagesincluded directtlzreats thatW ard 14 intendedto shootW oodsdead on sight,thebarefeargenerated by those wordsdid notjustify W oods'infliction often roundsofdeadly forcein self-defense,m orethmlhalfofthem fired from behind thevictim . Thetextm essagesalso could nothaverefuted the reasonable conclusion that W oodsprovokedtheconfrontation with W ardand then çGwillfullyandpurposefully shotthevictim with adeliberatemind''in am alicioustGbarrageofgunfre.''1d.at618-19. For the stated reasons, the court cnnnot fnd that W oods has m et his btlrden under Strickland to show eitherdeficientperfonuanceorprejudice.Accordingly,thecourtconcludes, ptlrsuanttoj2254(*,thatthestatecourt'sadjudicationofW oods'Claim (B)wasnotcont' raryto, oranllnreasonableapplicationoflfederallaw andwasnotbasedonanunreasonabledetermination ofthe facts in lightofthe evidence presented. The courtwillgrantthe m otion to dismissasto (zlairn(13). 111.CONCLUSION Aftercarefulreview ofthepetition,the motion to dismiss,and pertinentpartsofthe state courtrecordsand decisions,the courtconcludesthattherespondent'smotion to dism issmustbe granted.g An appropriateorderwillissuethisday. ENTER :This 45 day ofSeptember, 2019. SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge 9 Becausethe courthasfound thatW oods'claimsmustbe dismissed asprocedurally defaulted orwithout meritunderj2254(*,thecourtdoesnotfmditnecessarytoaddresstherespondent'salternatetime-bardefenseasto someoftheclaims. 15
]]>
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.
