Jessup v. Clarke, No. 7:2018cv00505 - Document 17 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 9/27/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERKS OFFJCEt),S. DIST.COtJP' AT ROANOKL VA FILED IN TH E U N ITED STA TES D ISTR ICT CO U R T FO R TH E W ESTERN D ISTR IC T O F W R G IN IA R O AN O K E DIV ISIO N sEP 2? 2212 JULIAi ,DUD $i 6 '' .t.t.j - .. JAM ES JESSUP, Petitioner, HAROLD CLARKE, R espondent. J ; 1:) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.7:18CV00505 , CL J ;,, (:) . , M EM OM NDUM OPINION By:Hon.Glen E.Conrad SeniorUnitedStatesDistrictJudge ' PetitionerJnm esJessup,a Virginia inmateproceeding pro K ,filed thispetition forawrit ofhabeascorpus,ptlrsuantto28U.S.C.j2254,challengingthevalidityofhisconfinepentunder a2013judgmentby a state court. Thematterispresently beforethecourton thereypondent's m otion to dism iss and Jessup's response thereto. For the reasons set forth below,the court concludesthattherespondent'sm otion to dism issmustbe granted. 1. BACKGROUND. A grandjuryoftheAppomattoxCountyCircuitCourtretum edindictmentsinJtmeof2013, charging Jessup with one countofindecentlibertiesand nine countsofsexualabuseofachild at leastthirteen butnotyetfifteen yearsofage:threecountsofcarnalknowledgewithouttheuseof force,three cotmtsofforcible sodomy,and three countsofobjectsexualpenetration.l Jessup pleaded notguilty andproceeded to abench triplon August8,2013. ln denying Jessup's directappeal,the CourtofAppealsofVirginia found the following factsfrom theevidencepresentedattrial,statedinthelightm ostfavorableto the Commonwealth: Jessup v. Clarke Doc. 17 (Ijn July2012,fourteen-year-old C.H.spoketo (Jessupqwhen hevisitedwith her parentsattheirhouse. C.H.'Sbirthday wason July 25,and glessupqwasather housearoundthetimeofherbirthday.C.H.testified(Jessupqsenthertextmessages andcalledherafterwards.C.H.testifiedshenextsaw Elessup)atH.J.'Strailerjust priortothestartofschoolinmid-August2012.H.J.was(Jessupq'sdaughter.C.H. llnthesametimeperiod,thegrandjurychargedJessupwithotheroffensesinvolvingothervictimsthatare notthesubjectofthishabeascorpusaction. Dockets.Justia.com testifed glessupjanived atH.J.'Strailer,ghe)took herto W al-M art,(he)bought herapairofpants,and they returnedto H.J.'Strailer.C.H.testified shewenttothe bathroom totryon thepants,sheexitedthebathroom,glessupjtookhertoH.J.'S bedroom,and (Jessup)puthishanddownherpants.C.H.testified glessup)nzbbed hervaginaandputtwo fingersinsidehervagina.C.H.testifiedH.J.droveherhom e and shedidnottellherparentswhathad happened. C.H.testifiedaftertheAugustincident,shesaw (Jessupjwhenhecnmeto herhousetovisitwithherparents.C.H.testified (Jessupqcalledherorsenthera textmessageeverydayaftertheAugustincidentand(Jessupjstatedthathewanted to m arry heraftershet' urzled eighteen. C.H.testified on a Friday in late October 2012,H.J.pickedherupandtookhertoH.J.'Strailer.z(JessuplwasatH.J.'Strailer. C.H.,H.J.,(Jessup),andotherswentto aPizzaHutandW al-M art,whereoneof the adultspurchased alcohol. W hile in the car,C.H.consum ed alcohol. Later, glessupqdroveC.H.,H.J.,andH.J.'Sbom iendtoH.J.'Strailer.C.H.testified she wenttothebedroom toliedown becauseshewasnotfeelingwellfrom the alcohol. C.H.testified (Jessupjremovedherpants,gheqremoved hertmderwear,and (heq insertedhisfngersinto hervagina.C.H.testified(Jessupqalsoperformedoralsex . onher.C.H.testified shespentthenightatH.J.'Strailer,and on Saturday morning, (Jessuplagain performed oralsex onher. C.H.testifed (Jessup)droveherhome on Saturday m orning,she packed clothes,and they laterretlvned to H .J.'Strailer. C.H.testified (Jessupjsleptin thesamebedwith heron Saturday nightand (hel usedhisGitsngersandtongue''again.C.H.testified H.J.droveherhome on Sunday m orning.C.H.did nottellherparentswhathad happened. AftertheOctoberincident,ElessupqandC.H.frequentlysenttextmessages toeachotherandtalked onthephone.C.H.testifiedshenextsaw glessupjinlate December2012. C.H .testified H.J.picked herup and they wentto H.J.'Strailer, butH.J.leftashorttimelater. C.H.testiled (Jessuplwasatthetrailerand he performed oralsex on herwhile she perform ed oralsex on him . C.H.testified (Jessup)tookherhome.Duringcross-exnminatioh,C.H.admitted shetelephoned abomb threatto herschoolin M arch 2013 (afterarrestwarrantsforthe sexual offenseshadbeen issuedagainstJessupin January20131.C.H.explained shedid notwantto go to schoolbecauseclassm atesknew aboutthechargesand they were calling hernames.C.H.admitted she told adults aboutthe incidents after C.H. learnedthatH.J.accused Elessuplofrape.3 H J.testified(JessuplwasathertraileronOctober26,2012,andaftergoing outforpizza,consllmingalcohol,andvisitingfriends,C.H.and Elessuplspentthe nightinabedroom ofthetrailer.H.J.testified (Jessup)andC.H.spentthenightof October27,2012togetherathertrailer.H.J.testified sheneverleft(Jessupland C.H.alone in hertrailer. 2 On cross-exam ination,C.H .agreedthatitwasFriday,O ctober26,2012. 3Thechargesagainst(Jessup)involvingH.J.werebeforeacourtinNelsonCounty. 2 M em .Supp.M ot.Dism .Ex.B,at3-5,ECF No.11-2. Several times dlzring cross-exnm ination, defense cotmsel pointed out inconsistencies between C.H .'Strialtestim ony and hertestimony atthepreliminary headng. Tr.64,73-74,75, 82 84 4 C H testified thatherfatherand Jessup rodem otorcyclesand would goto thedrag strip to race,and sometim esshewentwith them . Tr.at79. C.H.adm itted during cross-examination thatshehadtelephoned abom bthreatto herschoolin M arch of2013,andthen sheexplained that she did notwantto go to school'afterclassm ateslenrned ofthe chargesagainstJessup and began calling hernnm es.Tr.at91-92,95-96.C.H.also admittedthatshetold adultsabouttheincidents with Jessup only afterlenrning thatH .J.had accused Jessup ofsexualoffensescharged in Nelson County. Tr.at81-82. Atthe conclusion ofthe Comm onwealth's case,the trialcourtstnzck three charges of forciblesodomy andthreechargesofobjectsexualpenetration. Tr.at135-37. Thedefenseput on tw o w itnesses. GraceScott rlessupj'ssister,testified shelived atH.J.'Strailerfrom the end ofJuly tllrough October3,2012,sheneverleftthetrailer,sheneversaw C.H. atthetrailer,and she saw (Jessup)atthe trailerfora briefperiod on only two occasions. Scotttestified she only leftthe trailerbecause she was arrested fora probation violation. ErinThompson,(Jessupl'swife,testified shewenttothedrag strip onthe aftemoonofOctober27,2012with (Jessup)andothers,includingC.H.andC.H.'S parents. Thompson testified she rem embered the date because she had a track timesheetforthe date. Thompson testified thetrack timesheetshowed (Jessupj raced between 4:43 p.m .and 5:54 p.m . Thompson testified she leftthedrag strip with (Jessupj,theywenthome,andhestayedhomewithher. M em .Supp.M ot.Dism .Ex.B,at5,ECF N o.11-2. 4 In thismemorandum opinion,citationstothetranscriptsinthe circuitcourtrecord forCommonwealth v. Jessup,(2R 13-36 to CR 13-50 areabbreviated asfollows:ç$Tr.''citestothetranscriptofthebench trialon August8, 2013, .Rllr'gTr.''citesto thetranscriptofthehearing on September5,2013, .and C&sent.Tr.''citestothetranscriptof thesentencing hearing on Septem ber 16,2013. $T r.Hr'gTr, ''citesto theprelim inary hearingtranscript,a copy of whichisincludedasan exhibittotheM otionto Dismissinthestatehabeasrecordofthe SupremeCourtofVirginia. Attheconclusion ofthe evidence,JudgeKimberly W hitestated thatthe caserestedon the credibility ofC.H. Thejudgesaid shehad listened Glexceedingly carefully''to C.H.'Stestimony andhadtaken Gtcopiousnotes''whenC.H .and H.J.w eretestifying.Tr.at167.JudgeR itestated thatC.H .'Stestim onywasclearerthan H.J.'Stestim ony and foundthatC.H .'Stestim onyregarding thesexualactswascredible.Tr.at167,170.Judge W hitefound Jessup guilty ofthreecotmtsof cnrnallcnowledgeand onecountofindecentliberties. Tr.at170. Appearing forsentencing on September5,2018,Jessup'scounselmadean oralm otion for a new trial. Hr'g Tr.at3. Cotmselstated thatH.J.had told lzim she wanted to change hertrial testimony aboutthe offensesagainstC.H. Ld=.Cotmselsaid thatH.J.,who waspresent,would tEtestify,in essence,thatnone ofthishappened.''Id. JudgeW hitedirected defensecounselto5le awrittenm otion,continuedthesentencing,and closed courtwithoutpermittingH .J.topresenther testim ony.Id.at4-5. W hen thepartiesreappeared forsentencing on Septem ber16,2013,H.J.wasnotpresent. Sent.Tr.at6. Jessup'scounselprofferedthatH.J.feared changinghertestim ony would resultin prosecution forperjtlry andjeopardizehernew public housing arrangement. J#. zat20. The prosecutorreported H.J.'Sstatem entafterthe hearing on Septem ber5,2013,thatJessup'sfam ily hadofferedher$2,000tochangeherstory,and sheneededthemoney.J. IJZ.at22-23.Insupportof the m otion for new trial,Jessup's cotmseltmsuccessfully offered an tmsigned affidavithe had prepared forH.J.to sign on Septem ber5,2013,wllich she had thereafterrefused to sign,saying thatitwasnotcorrect.J#.at21-22.Cotmselalso offeredintoevidenceaparticipantregistration form f' rom thedrag race strip. 1d.at24-25. Judge W hite recognized thatthe registration form w as corroborative ofthe trialtestim ony from Jessup's wife. Ld-usat29. Thejudge also noted thateven attrial,she had recognized 4 discrepanciesbetween H .J.'Sand C.H.'Stestim ony and thatshe continued to find C .H .to bethe morecrediblewitness.J. êsat30.Thejudgethen deniedthemotion foranew trialand sentenced Jessuptofortyyearsinprisononthefom felonyoffenses.JZ at32,45-46. Jessup appealed.TheCourtofAppealsofVirginiadenied theappealby orderdated October6,2014.Comm onwça1th v.Jessup,RecordNo.2258-13-2.Someyearslater,Jessup wasgranted leaveto seek abelated subsequentappealtothe Suprem eCourtofVirginia,which refused hisappealin asumm ary orderdated February 15,2017. Com monwea1th v.Jessup, RecordNo.160836. Jessup then filed atimely,proK petition forawritofhabeascorpusin the Suprem eCourt ofVirginia,executed on Febrtzary 8,2018.Jessupv.Clarke,RecordNo.180218. W eekslater,he filed additionalunverified sheets contairling factualand legalargum ent,dated M arch 1,2018, attached to a m otion forexpansion ofrecord.s By orderdated April17, 2018,the Courtdenied thismotionthatwasfiled outsidethestattzteoflimitations.SeeVa.CodeAlm .j8.01-654(A)(2) (requiringhabeascorpuspetitionchallenging criminaljudgmenttobefiled withinoneyearfrom completionofdirectappeal). Jessup'sform statehabeaspetition alleged the followingcursory claim s: (1) Counselrendered ineffectiveassistancewhenheadoptedadefensenotthe mostcompatiblew ith the facts; (2) Cotmselfailedtomakeareasonableefforttoprocuretestimonyofan alibi w itness; (3) Counselfailed to securedocumentaryevidencethrougha subpoenaduces tecum .;and (4) Cotmselfailed to secure a billofparticulars,thusdepriving Jessup ofa m eaningfulopportunity to presenta com plete defense. 5 Jessup's motion asserted his intent to add certain aftidavits and exhibits to the record,butno such docum entswereattachedto them otion. By orderdatedM ay 2,2018,theCourtdireoted therespondenttofileresponsivepleadingsby June 11,2018,and perm itted Jessup to file a response to the respondent'spleading on orbefore July 11,2018. Jessup executed atraverse to them otion to dism isson July 25,2018,outside the allotted time. The traverse included the sam e factualand legalargum entsthathe had eadiersubmitted with themotion to expand therecord. By orderdated October2,2018,the Suprem eCourtofVirginia granted the respondent's motion to dism issJessup'shabeaspetition. The Courtstated thatithad considered Glthe petition fora m itofhabeascorpusfiled February 12,2018,therule to show cause,and the respondent's motion to dismiss.''M em .Supp.M ot.Dism .Ex.A,at1,ECF No.10.TheCourtexpresslynoted that ithad denied his motion to expand the record and had not considered Jessup's late-sled attachm ents. ln Jessup's j2254 petition before thiscourt,he allegesthathistrialcounselprovided ineffectiveassistance' . (a) byfailingiGtofileaBillofParticularsandpreparefortrial''; (b) by failing to require ûtthe prosecution to disclose eyidence favorable to petitionerand putthe defense underthe reciprocaldiscovery that would require disclosureofalibiinfonnation''; (c) byçladoptlingladefensenotmostcompatiblewiththefacts.'' Pet.Attach.8-10,ECF No.1. The respondenthasfled am otion to dism iss,and Jessup hasresponded,mnking them atterripefordisposition. 1I.D ISCUSSION. A . ProceduralD efault. CGEA)federalcourtmaynotgrantawritofhabeascorpusto apetitionerin state custody tmlessthepetitionerhasfirstexhausted hisstaterem ediesby presenting hisclaim sto thehighest statecourt.''Bakerv.Corcoran,220F.3d276,288(4thCir.2000)(citing28U.S.C.j2254(b)(1); O'Sullivan v.Boerckel,526 U.S.838,842 (1999:. The exhaustion.requirementin j2254(19 Girequiresa federalhabeaspetitionerto provide the state courtswith a fairppportunity to apply controlling legalprinciplestothefactsbearing upon hisconstimtionalclaim .Itisnotenough that allthefactsnecessary to supportthefederalclaim werebeforethestate courts,orthata somewhat similarstate-law claim wmsmade.''Andersonv.Harless,459U.S.4,6 (1982).6 Ifthepetitioner hasnotm esented a claim to the state courts,butwould clearly bebarred by an independentand adequatestateproceduralrulefrom havingthatclaim adjudicatednow ifhereturnedtostatecourt, theclaim isprocedtlrally ban' edfrom federalhabeasreview.Bassettev.Thom pson,915F.2d 932, 936 (4th Cir.1990)(citing Teacuev.Lane,489U.S.288 (1989:. A federalhabeascourtmay review them eritsofaprocedurally defaulted claim onlyiflltheprisonercan dem onstratecausefor thedefaultandactualprejudiceasaresultofthealleged violation offederallaw,ordemonstrate thatfailuretoconsidertheclaimswillresultinafundamentalmiscaniageofjustice.''? Coleman v.Thompson,501U.S.722,750(1991),holdingmodifiedp. qothergroundsb. yM artinezv.Ryan, 566U.S.1(2012). JessupdidnotpresenthisfederalhabeasClaim (b)intheform habeaspetitionfiledinthe Suprem e Cotu't of Virginia. This issue was included only in the untim ely fled papers not considered by the statecourt. Jessup would now beprecluded 9om presenting these claim swith hisadditionalfacttzalsupportinstatecourt.Va.CodeAnn.jj8.01-654(A)(2),-654(B)(2).These 6 The courthas omitted internalquotation marks, alterations,and citations here and throughout this memorandum opinion,lmlessotherwisenoted. 7Themiscarriageofjusticeexceptiontodefaultrequiresacolorableshowingthat,basedonnew evidence notpresented attrial,ç$ a constitutionalviolation has probably resulted in the conviction ofone who is actually innocent''Murravv.Carrier,477U.S.478,496(1986);Schlupv.Delo,513U.S.298,327(1995)(holdingthatacmal innocencecontentiontoopen aGçgateway''throughproceduraldefaultrequiresshowingthat&sitismorelikelythan not thatnoreasonablejurorwould haveconvictedhim in thelightofthenew evidence''). Jessup hasmadeno such showing. Virginia Code sections,setting the statute of limitationsfoxbringing a state habeas claim , and requiring a habeas petitionerto bring in hisGrstpetition a1lallegationsthen known to him , are b0thadequateandindependentstateproceduralrules.Bassette,915F.2dat937(regardingj8.01- 654(B)(2));Sparrow v.Dir.,Dep'tofCorrs.,439 F.Supp.2d 584,587-88 (E.D.Va.2006) (regarding j 8.01-654(A)(2)).Accordingly,the courtconcludesthatClaim (b)isprocedurally barredfrom federalreview absentashowingofcauseandprejudice.Coleman,501U.S.at750. To establish ççcause,''thepetitionermustGtshow thatsomeobjectivefactorexternaltothe defenseimpeded gllisqeffortsto complywiththeState'sproceduralnzle.A factorisexternal... ifitcarmotfairlybe attributedtotheprisoner.'' Davil!v.Davis,137 S.Ct.2058,2065 (2017). Jessup doesnotpresentanyfactoroutsidehiscontrolthathamperedhisability to subm ita11ofhis statehabeasGlingswithintheone-yearstattztorylimit,Va.CodeAnn.j8.01-654(A)(2),ortofile hisopposition to the motion to dism issby the court-ordered deadline. He merely arguesthattllis courtshouldignorethestatecourt'sfndingsunderitsownrulesthathislate-filed pleadingswould notbeconsideredon them erits.Ashefailsto show causeforhisdefault,thiscourtisbarredfrom addressingClaim (b)onthemeritsandwillgrantthemotiontodismissastothisclaim. B.Review ofAdjudicatedClaims. Under28U.S.C.j2254(d),thefederalhabeascourtmaynotgrantawritofhabeascorpus basedonanyclaim thatastatecourtdecidedonthemeritsunlessthatadjudication: (1) Resulted in adecision thatwascontrary to,orinvolved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determ ined by the Suprem e Courtofthe U nited States;or (2) Resultedinadecisionthatwasbasedonan umeasonabledetermination of thefactsin lightoftheevidencepresented in the Statecourtproceeding. 28U.S.C.j2254(*;seealsoW illiamsv.Taylor,529U.S.362,403-13(2000).Cçn ere,ashere, the state court'sapplication ofgovem ing federal1aw is challenged,itm ustbe shown to be not only erroneous,butobjectively tmreasonable.'' Yarborough v.Gentry,540 U.S.1,5 (2003). Underthisstandard,G'lalstate court's determination thata claim lacksmeritprecludesfederal habeasreliefsolong asfair-mindedjuristscould disagreeon thecorrednessofthestatecourt's decision.''Haninctonv.Richter,562U.S.86,101(2011).Furthermore,thefederalhabeascourt's Itreview underj2254(d)(1)islimitedtotherecordthatwasbeforethestatecourtthatadjudicated theclaim onthemerits.''Cullenv.Pinholster,563U.S.170,181(2011) To prevailon a claim thatcotmsel'srepresentation wasso defective asto require reversal ofaconviction,apetitionermustm eetatwo-prongstandard,showingthatcounsel'slmreasonably deficientperformanceresultedinprejudice.Stricklandv.W ashinlon,466U.S.668,687(1984). First,thepetitionermustshow thatçGcounsel'srepresentationfellbelow an objectivestandard of reasonableness,'' considering circum stances and facts known to cotmsel at the tim e of the representation. Id.at687-88.Thepetitionermustovercom ea strongpresumption thatcotmsel's perform ance was within the range ofcompetence demanded from attorneysdefending crim inal cases.J;.sat689.Second,thepetitionermustdemonstrate(Gareasonableprobabilitythat,butfor counsel's tmprofessional errors,the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonableprobability isaprobability sufficientto tmdennine confdencein the outcom e.'' 1d.at 694. Ifthepetitionerfailsto satisfyeitherprong,hisclaim failswithoutneed forf' urtherinquiry. Id.at697. Jessup raised hisfederalClaims(a)and (c)in the form state habeaspetition,and the SupremeCourtofVirginiaadjudicated them on themerits.Accordingly,thiscourtmayreview themeritsoftheseclaimsonlyunderthedeferentialstandard mandated by j22544* .Asnoted, however,the statecourtconsidered only Jessup'sform petition and nothislater-filed supporting 9 argumentsand facts. Therefore,thiscourt'sreview is also lim ited to the claim saspresented in theform petition. Cullen,563 U.S.at181. The Suprem e Courtof Virginia found that Jessup failed to m eet either prong of the Strickland standard as to current Claim (a),alleging that Slcotmselfailed to seek a Billof Particulars.'' M em .Supp.M ot.Dism.Ex.A,at3,ECF No.11-1. The Courtstated thatJessup Gûfailsto identify orprofferwhatintbrmation counselshouldhaverequested in abillofparticulars orhow thatinformationwouldhaveaffectedhisdefense.Thus,Elessuplhasfailedtodemonstrate that cotmsel's perform ance was deficientorthatthere is a reasonable probability that,butfor cotmsel'sallegederrors,theresultoftheproceedingwouldhavebeendifferent''J-I. L Conclusory allegations ofineffective assistance ofcotm sel,withoutfacm alsupporq are insux cienttoraiseaconstitutionalissue.Nickersonv.Lee,971F.2d 1125,1136(4th Cir.1992), overnlled pq otherMrotmdsGray v.Netherland,518U. S.152 (1996). W ithoutaparticularized . description of the information cotmselfailed to obtain,the habeas courtcnnnot assess either counsel'sallegeddeficiéncy in failingto obtainitorthelikelihood thatprejudiceresulted from thatomission. Beaverv.Thompson,93F.3d 1186,1195 (4th Cir.1996)(holdingthatfailureto profferwhatfavorable evidence ortestim ony counselshould haveproduced isfatalto allegation ofinadequate investigation). Thecourtconcludes,ptlrsuantto j22544*,thatthe statecourt's adjudicationofJessup'sClaim ()wasnotcontraryto,oran unreasonableapplicationof,federal 10 1aw and was not based on an um easonable determination ofthe facts in lightofthe evidence moperlypresented.' ThecourtwillgrantthemotiontodismissastoClaim (a). The Suprem eCourtofVirginiaalso denied reliefunderStrickland asto Jessup'scurrent Claim (c),alleging thatEtcounselfailed to makereasonable effortsto proctlrethe testimony of lmnnmed alibiwitnesses.'' M em .Supp.M ot.Dism .Ex.A,at1,ECF No.11-1.TheCourtstated' . (Jessupqfailstoidentifyhow thedefensetheorythatcounselpresentedattrialwas notcompatiblewiththefactsofthecase.(Jessup)alsofailstoprofferorarticulate whattheory ofdefense counselshould have presented and argue thata different theoryofdefensewouldhavebeen successful.Thus,Ehe)hasfailedtodemonstrate thatcounsel'sperfonuance wasdeficientorthatthereisa reasonableprobability that,butforcounsel'salleged enors,theresultoftheproceeding would havebeen different. JZ at 1-2. Overcoming the presumption ofreasonablenessthatcotmselenjoysregarding llis chosen trialstrategy and thedecisionsin supportofthatstrategy isdifticult. Strickland,466 U.S. at689.Jessup'sbaredeclarationthatitwasnotcompatiblewith thefactsinhiscasesimply cnnnot suftke.Thecourtconcludes,pttrsuanttoj2254(*,thatthestatecourt'sadjudicationofJessup's Claim (c)wasnotcontraryto,oranunreasonableapplicationof,federal1aw andwasnotbasedon S In any event, Jessup'sfactually supportedversion ofthisclaim also failsunderStrickland. He contends thatabillofparticularswould haverequiredtheCommonwea1thto providewith morespeciticitythe dateswhen the allegedoffensesqccurredtoallow him todevelopalibievidence.Counselreasonablycouldhavebelieved thatJessup wasnotlikelyentitledtoabillofparticularshere.UnderVirginialaw,Sûla)billofparticularsisrequiredonlywhen the indictmentis insufficientto notify the accused ofthe namre and characterofthe chargesso he can make his defense.''Yeaaerv.Commonwea1th,433S.E.2d248,250(Va.App.1993). Whenanadultischargedwith sexual offensesagainstachild,SEtime(is)notoftheessencefortheoffensescharged.'' Clinebellv.Commonwealth,349 S.E.2d676,679(Va.App.1986)(holdingthatinstamtoryrapecase,whenageofvictim isnotindispute,indictment isnotrequiredtospecifyexactdateofoffense).TheindictmentsagainstJessupalleged alimitedrangeofdatesfor eachoffense.Jessup'scounselalsohad opportunitytocross-examineC.H.extensively dmingthepreliminaryhearing inthejuvenilecourttonarrow thedatesoftheoffensesinpreparationfortrial.Pr.I' Ir'gTr.20-21,23,28,30-31,39. Dming thetrialitselflcounselagain questioned C.H.extensively aboutwhen theoffenseshad occurred. Heasked C.H.ifshe had been aspreciseasshe could beon thedates,and sherespondedthatshe had.Tr.at64,68-69,101. On thisrecord,thecourtcalmotfind thatJessup'scounselprovidedtmreasonablerepresentation in failingto request abillofparticularsorthatbutforhisfailureto do so,theoutcomewouldhavebeendifferentattrial. anunreasonabledetermination ofthefaetsin lightoftheevidenceproperly presented.g Thecourt willgrantthemotiontodismissastoClaim (c). 111. CONCLUSION Aftercarefulreview ofthepetition,them otion to dismiss,and pertinentpartsofthestate cout'trecords,the courtconcludesthatthe m otion to dism iss mustbe granted. An appropriate orderw illissue thisday. TheClerkisdirectedto sendcopiesofthism emorandum opinion and accompanying order to petitionerandto colmselofrecord fortherespondent. ENTER :This t J5 day ofSeptember,2019. SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge 9 EvenifthecourtcouldconsiderthemeritsofJessup'sfactually supportedversion ofthisclaim,italso fails underStrickland.Cotmsel'sprimarystrategy wastodiscredittheaccuracyofC.H.'Stestimony.Jessup contendsthat counselshould haveinstead focusedon thealibithatJessup wasracingmotorcyclesataracetrack onthedateswhen C.H.claimed he had molested her. Jessup assertsthatcounselshould have obtained documentation and wim ess testimonyabouthisracetrackvisits.However,therecordretlectsthatJessup failedtotellcounselaboutthispotential defenseuntilapproximately one week beforethetrialdate. Tr.at14. Counselthen madeunsuccessf' ulattemptsto subpoena documentation 9om the race track owner and moved for a continuance ofthe trialto allow further developmentofsuch evidence. Id.at14-19. Judge W hitedenied acontinuance. 1d.at28. Nevertheless,counsel presented testimony 9om Jessup'swifethatJessup madefrequenttripsto theracetrack,including theweekend of October27,2012.Id.at146-50.Jessup'swifetestifedthatsheandJessup leA theracetrack intheearlyevening on October27,2012,wenthometogether,and stayedthere. Id.at148-49. Counselargued thatJessup could nothave committedtheoffenseon October27,2012,thatC.H.describedbecausehewasattheracetrack. Id.at161. ûçA fairassessmentofattorney performancerequiresthatevery effortbe made to elim inatethe distorting effectsofhindsight,to reconstructthe circumstancesofcounsel'schallenged conduct,and to evaluatethe conduct 9om cotmsel'sperspective atthe time.'' Strickland,466 U.S.at689. Counsel's investigative decisionscritically dependontim ely andaccurateinform ation providedbyhisclient,asdoesthecourt'sassessm entofthereasonableness ofcounsel'sdecisions.Id.at691.ln thiscase,Jessupfailedto directhiscounselin atimely mannertotheracetrack asa source ofpossible,additionalalibievidence. M oreover,consistentwith counsel'sstrategy,counselimpeached C.H.with herpriorsworntestimony 9om thepreliminary hearing and attempted to discreditherusing discrepancies between herstatements,aswellasthetestimony abouttripsto theracetrack. Clearly,thefactfinderdid notcredit thetestimonythatJessupwasathomewithhiswifeaAermotorcycleracingon October27,2012.Counsel'sstrategic decisionscannotbedeemed Ilnreasonable,however,merely becausethey proveunsuccessfulatachieving acquittal. Id.at 689. The com' t cannot find thatJessup's counselfailed to provide reasonable representation under the circum stanceshefaced. 12
]]>
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.
