Abdul-Sabur v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 7:2018cv00518 - Document 24 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 8/23/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFICE U.S.DIST.COUR7 AT ROANOKE,VA FILED IN TH E U NITED STA TES D ISTRICT C OUR T FO R TH E W ESTER N DISTRICT O F W RG IN IA RO AN O K E DIW SIO N Ats 2 3 2215 JULIA .DUD BY: E FR W AK EEL M DUL-SA BU R, CASE N O.7:18CV00518 Petitioner, V. M EM O R AND UM O PINION COM M ONW EALTH OF W RGINW By: Hon.Glen E.Conrad Senior U nited States DistrictJudge Respondent. PetitionerW akeelA bdul-sabur,a Virginia inm ateproceeding pro K ,filed thispetition for awritofhabeascorpus,pursuantto28U.S.C.j2254,challengingthevalidityofhisconfinement undera1999statecourtjudgmentfrom LouisaCounty.Thepetitionispresentlybeforethecourt on the respondent's m otion to dism iss and Abdul-sabur's response thereto. Forthe reasons set forth below,the courtconcludesthatthe respondent's m otion to dism issm ustbe granted. A bdul-sabur is currently confined under the finalorder of the Circuit Court of Louisa County,dated April1,1999,convicting him oftwo countsofgrand larceny and sentencing him to serve an aggregate sentence of 10 years,w ith 3 years and 9 m onths suspended. A bdul-sabur appealed. The CourtofAppealsofVirginia refused his petition on Septem ber 13,1999. A bdulSaburdid notappealto the Suprem e CourtofVirginia. Abdul-Sabur v. Commonwealth of Virginia In 2018,Abdul-saburGled a habeascom uspetition in the CircuitCourtofLouisa County, Doc. 24 allegingthefollowingclaims:(a)onJuly 1,2018,astatutory amendmenttook effect,changing thethreshold amountforgrand larceny from $200 to $500,making Abdul-sabur'ssentencefor grandlarcenyfundamentallydefective;and (b)appellatecounselprovided ineffectiveassistance Dockets.Justia.com by failing to raise a claim thatAbdul-saburwas denied ajul'y instruction underFishback v. Commonwealth,532S.E.2d629(Va.2000),informingthejurythatparolehadbeenabolishedin V irginia in 1995. Ataround the sam e tim e,A bdul-saburalso tiled a habeascorpuspetition in the SupremeCourtofVirginia,raisingonlyclaim (a).Thecircuitcourtdismisseditspetitionbyorder datedOctober4,2018,findingthatclaim (a)wasuntimelyfiledunderstatelaw andwithoutmerit, andthatclaim (b)wasuntimelyfiledandprocedurallydefaultedbecauseAbdul-saburhadfailed to raise the claim in his2016 state habeas petition.The Suprem e CourtofVirginia dism issed its petition by orderdated October 11,2018,asuntim ely fled. Abdul-saburfiledhisj2254petitiononOctober22,2019,allegingthesameclaimsthat heraised inthe2018circuitcourtpetition:(a)hissentenceforgrandlarceny isdefectivebecause oftheamendmenttothestamtorythreshold amount;and(b)appellatecounselwasineffectivein failingtoraiseaFishbackclaim.TherespondenthasGledamotiontodismissthej2254petition, and Abdul-saburhasresponded,m aking the m atterripe fordisposition. l1. Theone-yearperiodoflirnitationforfilingahabeaspetitionunderj2254beginstorunon the latestoffourdates: (A) thedateonwhich thejudgmentbecamefinalby theconclusionofdirect review orthe expiration ofthetim e forseeking such review ; (B) thedateonwhichtheimpedimenttofilinganapplication createdby State action in violation of the Constitution or law s of the United States is rem oved,ifthe applicantwasprevented from filing by such State action; (C) thedateonwhichtheconstitutionalrightassertedwasinitiallyrecognized by the Suprem e Court, if the right has been new ly recognized by the Suprem e Court and m ade retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review;or 2 (D) thedate on which thefactualpredicate oftheclaim orclaimspresented could have been discovered through the exercise ofdue diligence. 28 U.S.C.j 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D). The federalGling period is tolled while any properly filed applicationforstatepost-convictionorcollateralreview ispending28U.S.C.j2244(d)(2). Itisundisputed thatAbdul-sabur'spetition wasuntimely filed underj2244(d)(1)(A). A fterthe CourtofAppeals ofV irginia denied his directappealon Septem ber 13,1999,AbdulSabur had thirty days to note an appealto the Suprem e Courtof Virginia. See V a.Sup.Ct.R. 5:14(a).W henhefailedtodoso,hisconvictionsbecamefinalforpurposesofj2255(d)(1)(A), and his federalhabeasfling period began to run. See Gonzalesv.Thaler,565 U .S.134,149-50 (2012)(holdingthatwhenstateprisonerdoesnotseekappellatereview,judgmentbecomesfinal whentimeforseekingdirectreview expires).ltexpiredoneyearlater,on September12,2000. A bdul-saburdid nottlle ahabeas corpuspetition in any state courtconcerning hisLouisa County convictionsuntilafterhis federalfiling period had expired,so his state petitions did nottollthe federalperiodunderj2244(d)(2).Thus,Abdul-sabur'sj2254petition,executedyearslaterin October2018,isuntimelyfiledunderj2244(d)(1)(A),unlesshedeinonstratesafactualbasison whichtoinvokeanotherprovisionofj2244(d)(1),ortowarrantequitabletolling. The courtw illpresum e w ithoutfinding that Claim 1,concerning the am endm ent to the grandlarcenystatuteonJuly1,2018,istimelyunderj2244(d)(1)(D),becauseAbdul-saburfiled itw ithin one yearofthe su tutory am endm ent. A bdul-saburarguesthatV irginia w asrequired to reduce his conviction for grand larceny of a com puterto a m isdem eanor once the grand larceny threshold increased to $500. Thisclaim failsunderstate and federallaw. :1No new actofthe G eneralAssem bly shallbe construed to repeala form er law ,asto any offense com m itted against theformer1aw ....'' Va.Code Ann.j1-249 (formerly cited asVa.St.j1-16). Underthis provision,theLouisa County CircuitCourtrejected Abdul-sabur'shabeasclaim thatthe 2018 am endm entto the grand larceny statute should apply retroactively to reduce hiscrim inalliability. SeealsoRublenasv.Commonwealth,275S.E.2d628,630-32(Va.1981)(holdingunderVa.St. j1-16 thatthe lspenalty in existence atthe time ofthe offense should be applied unlessthe Com m onwealth first elects to proceed under the new statute and obtains the consent of the defendantto do so.'');Abdo v.Commonwealth,237 S.E.2d 900,903 (Va.1977)(holding that under Va.St.1-16,election to proceed undernew statute must occur before judgment is pronounced).A statecourt'sdeterminationregardingwhethertogiveretroactiveapplicationtoa state statute isam atterofstatelaw thatisnotcognizablein afederalhabeascorpusaction.Estelle v.McGuire.502 U.S.62,67-68 (1991)(GG(I1tisnotthe province ofafederalhabeascourtto reexaminestate-courtdetenninationsonstate-law questions'');W arrenv.Kyler,422F.3d132,136 (3d Cir.2005)(holdingthattheDueProcessClauseisnotimplicatedwhenastatecourtdeclines togiveretroactiveeffecttooneofitsown decisions).Accordingly,thecourtconcludesthatthe m otion to dism iss mustbe granted asto A bdul-sabur's Claim 1. A sto Claim 2,Abdul-saburarguesthatthefederalGling period should beequitably tolled. Equitable tolling occursonly ifa petitioner shows($(1)thathe has been pursuing his rights diligently,and(2)thatsomeextraordinary circumstancestoodin hisway and preventedtimely tlling.'' Hollandv.Florida,560U.S.631,649 (2010). Abdul-saburcontendsthatbecausethe Fishback decision m ade a new rule and issued in 2000,w hile Abdul-sabur's directappealw as pending and his convictions w ere notyetfinal,its rule should autom atically be applied to allow him toberesentencedwithproperjuryinstructions. Atan earliertim e,legislation w asproposed thatw ould have provided such a rem edy. ln early 2018,abillw asintroduced in the V irginia State Senate that,ifenacted,would have provided thatany person stillincarcerated fora nonviolentfelony com m itted afterJanuary 1, 1995,when 4 V irginia abolished parole,could have filed a m otion w ith the trialcourtfor a new sentencing proceedingto includeajury instruction abouttheabolitionofparole. However,thebilldid not pass.Abdul-saburassertsthatthelegislature'sfailuretoprovidethis.remedy (forhim andothers withsimilarpre-Fishbacksentences)isaresultofalong-standingpracticeofgerrymanderingon thebasisofracein form ulating voting districtsin partsofV irginia,asdiscussed in recentlitigation. See,e.g.,Bethune-Hillv.Va.StateBd.ofElections,326F.Supp.3d128(E.D.Va.2018)(holding thatrace waspredom inantfactor in draw ing districts forredistricting plan,race predom inated in the construction of individualdistricts,and the legislature's predom inant reliance on race over traditionaldistrictingcriteriawhendrawingmajority-minoritydistrictswasnotnarrowly tailored toachievecompellinginterestasconstitutionallyrequired),appealdismissedsubnom.Va.House ofDelegatesv.Bethune-Hill,139 S.Ct.1945(2019).Abdul-saburfurtherarguesthatthisrace discrimination by the state legislaturehasbeen a state-created impedim entto histimely filing of hisFishbackclaim soastotriggercalculationofhisfederalGlingperiodunderj2244(d)(1)(B). The courtcannot find that Abdul-sabur has offered any viable excuse for his w aiting eighteen yearsafterthe Fishback decision to raise hiscurrentclaim on thatissue in afederalhabeas petition. The alleged ineffective assistance ofA bdul-sabur's appellate attorney did notprevent A bdul-saburhim selffrom pursuingtheclaim in astatepetitionyearsearlierthan hedid.Sim ilarly, w hile race discrim ination in the legislature m ay have discouraged com m itm ent to provide Fishback reliefto Abdul-saburand those sim ilarly situated to him ,lack ofsuch a rem edy did not preventAbdul-saburin any way from tiling hisclaim in a federalpetition.Accordingly,thecourt concludes thatthe factors to which Abdul-sabur points do notqualify as an impedimentunder j2244(d)(1)@ )orasgrolmdsforequitabletollingofthefederalElingperiod,W erefore,thecourt V IIgrantthemofonto dismissasto Clsim 2.' TheClerkisdlrected to send coplesofthismemorandum opinlon and accompanying od ertopetifonerandto cotmselofrecord fortherespondent A Exr rER:w s *Y dayofAugust2019. SenlorUnited StatesDisd ctJudge 'TlzeremondotalgnW l1estbatAbdul-sabur'sunderlyingallegadoninClm'm (2)' thatappellatecounsel providedineFKtiveassie nce,ism thoutmedt.SeeJermgnv.Dir.ofDep,tof(20=..5935X.2d255,260(W .2004) (holdingtI)M appellatecolmselisnotineffecdveforfm'll 'njtorai;eclm'm onappealifargtlmentwasprocedurally defatlltedwhentrialcounsd fY' IH toraiseltdnringtriall(cltingVa.S' up.Ct.Rtlle5:25CW onzlingoftlzetrialcourt discipline boardyorcomminsionbefox whichthecasewasiniflRllyheardwillbecfmdderedasabasisforrevœsal unlessanobjedionwasstatedw11 reasonablenz- intyattlzetimeofthenuing,exceptforgoodcauseshownorto O ablethisCourttoattainthee114sofjllnticel');Jonesv.B= es.463U.S.745,751(1983)(holdingthntcotmseldoes not= tGerklefeœ veassistgncewh> mAlngsœate#cdecisiontoappealcertm'necorsandnottoappealweaker c1%1<nR)).
]]>
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.
