Paggans v. Warden, No. 7:2018cv00528 - Document 20 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 9/17/19. (ham)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
tLERKS OFFICE U.3.DIST.GOURT AT DANMLLE,VA FILED IN TH E U NITED STATES DISTRIC T C O UR T FOR TH E W ESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA R O AN O K E D IVISIO N sEP 1? 2219 JULA C DLEK CL RK sv:ku DEPUTY CLER ROBERT W ILLIAM S PAG GANS,SR., Petitioner, CivilAction No.7:18cv00528 V. M EM O M ND UM O PIN IO N W A RD EN , By: H on.Jackson L.K iser Senior United StatesD istrictJudge R espondent. Petitioner Robert W illiam s Paggans, Sr.,a Virginia inmate proceeding pro K ,sled a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.j 2254, challenging his 2015 conviction imposed by the Circuit Court of Campbell County.This matter is before me on respondent'sm otion to dism iss.Afterreviewing therecord,Iwillgrantrespondent'sm otion and dism issPaggans'petition. 1. On M arch 19,2015,in the CircuitCourtofCampbellCotmty,Pagganspled guilty to fom counts of distributing cocaine,as third or subsequentoffenses.At the guilty plea hearing,the prosecutor suncncarized the evidence against Paggans on the four charges.According to the prosecutor's sllmm ary,two confidentialinformants working forthe CampbellCotmty Sheriffs Office would have testified at a trial that they had obtained cocaine from Paggans on four different occasions. Regarding the M arch 20, 2014 offense, the prosecutor stated that one Paggans v. Warden Doc. 20 infonnantwas given $60 and the other$40 to purchase cocaine from Paggans.The infonuants gave Paggans$100 and asked forcrack cocaine.ln exchange,Paggansprovided threepieces of crack cocaine to theinfonuants.The informantsturned overthe dnlgsto the investigator,and an examination by the Departm entofForensic Science determined the item s were indeed cocaine. Dockets.Justia.com On April3,2014,the same two informantsparticipated in apurchase from Paggans.Thattime, they received $260 forthepurchase,$250to pay forthedrugsand $10 forPaggansto go and get the cocaine.Paggansexchanged cocaine forthem oney from oneoftheinformants.On April10, 2014,thesnm einformantsreceived $100 toptlrchasecocaine.Although thesalew assupposed to occlzr atPaggans'hom e,Paggans called the inform ants and told them to park atthe M exican restatlrantbehind hishousebecause thepolice were in frontofhishouse.One ofthe informants parked atthe restaurant,wentto Paggans'back door,and exchanged the m oney for cocaine. Finally,on M ay 13,2014,the inform ants brought$100 to Paggans'home and exchanged the m oney for cocaine.Al1four drug sales were recorded by audio and video equipm ent,which included Stfac,eshots''ofPaggansduring'thedrug transactions. Also during the guilty plea hearing,the courtconducted a colloquy with Paggansbefore accepting hispleas.Pagganstold the courtthathe tmderstood the fourcharges againsthim and had had enough tim e to discuss the charges,including any defenses,with counsel.Paggans advised the courtthathehad discussed hisplea optionswith counseland afterthose discussions had decided,for himself,to plead guilty.Paggans said the pleas were freely and voluntmily made.The courtreviewed with Paggansthatby pleading guilty,he wasgiving up severalrights. Paggansadvisedthecourtthatno onehad forced orthreatenedhim to plead guilty to thecharges. Paggans said thathe had truthfully answered the questionson thepleaform before he signed it, and he was entering the guilty pleasbecause he wasin factguilty ofthe charges.According to Paggans,he discussed with counselthe sentencesthatcould be imposed.Paggansexpressed his satisfaction with counsel's services.The courtaccepted Paggans'guilty pleas,convicted him as charged,and setthe m atterforsentencing. Followingpreparation ofapresentencerepolt the courtheld asentencing hearing.Atthe 2 hearing,InvestigatorDwayne W ade oftheCam pbellCounty Sheriff'sDepartmenttestitied about some ofthe detailsofthe dnlg dijtributions,including Paggans'instructionsto the infonnantsto park atthe M exican restalzranton April10,2014.Defense counselexamined InvestigatorW ade regarding the factthaton som e occasionsPagganshad to physically go elsewhere to obtain the drugs he sold to the informants.Investigator W ade also confirm ed thatPaggans had provided infbrmation to W ade about dnzg dealing in the area.lnvestigator Penn ofthe Altavista Police Departm enttestified thatthecontidentialinform antshadreported to him thatPagganssaid thatif he discovered they wereSlthelaw,''hewould getto them .Paggansdid notdenythatthefourdrug transactionshad occurred,butdid deny threatening theinfonnants.Paggans furthertestified that . he had provided Investigator W ade with a11the information he had regarding the illegaldrug trade in the area.During cross-examination,Paggans acknowledged thathe had been dealing drugs and thathe advised the ptlrchasers to park atthe M exican restaurantbecause the police werenearby.The courtultimately sentencedPaggansto twenty-eightyearsofincarceration,with nineteen yerssuspended.Paggansdid notappeal. On February 21,2017,Paggans filed a state habeas petition in the Circuit Courtof Cam pbellCounty,alleging that the Com monwealth failed to disclose im peachment evidence about criminalmisconductby Altavista police officers and informants.lThe coul'tdenied and dism issed Paggans'petition on June 26,2017,finding that his claim had no m erit.Paggans appealed to the Suprem e CourtofVirginia.The courtrefused hisappealon June 12,2018,and denied his petition for rehearing on October 4,2018.Paggans filed the instant federalhabeas petition on October24,2018,raising the snmeclaim heraised in statecourt. 1ln October 2016,Kenneth W alsh,the form er Chief of the Altavista Police Departm ent,was convicted of em bezzling public m oney,forging docum ents,and obtaining drugs by fraud.W alsh was accused of asking drug informants for the police department to buy prescription drugs for W alsh's personaluse.ltappearsthatan investigation ofW alsh w as ongoing atthe time Pagganssold drugsto the confidentialinform antsand/orwhen he entered hisguilty pleas. 3 I1. Paggans allegesthatthe Comm onwealth failed to disclose impeachmentevidence about criminalm isconductby Altavista police officersand informants.The CircuitCourtofCnmpbell Countyadjudicatedandrejectedthisclaim,findingthatitfailedunderUnitedStatesv.Ruiz,536 U.S.622 (2002),andUnited Statesv.M oussaoui,591F.3d 263 (4th Cir.2010).Ifindthatthe statecourt'sadjudication oftheseclaimswasnotcontraryto,oran lmreasonableapplication of, clearlyestablishedfederal1aw anddidnotresultinadecision tàatwasbasedonan unreasonable determination ofthefacts.Accordingly,Iwilldism issPaggans'claim . W hen reviewingahabeasclaim thathasbeenadjudicatedon themeritsbyastatecout't,a federalcourtmay granthabeas relief only if the state courtadjudication (1) (tresulted in a decision that was contrary to,or involved an unreasonable application of,clearly established Federallaw,asdetermined by the Supreme Courtofthe United States,''or(2)tlresulted in a decision thatwasbased on an unreasonable determ ination of the facts in lightofthe evidence presented in the state courtproceeding.''j22544d).A state court'sadjudication isconsidered contrary to clearly established federal1aw ifthe state courtanivesat a conclusion opposite to thatreached by the Supreme Courton a question of law or if the state courtdecides a case differently than the Suprem eCourthason a setofm aterially indistinguishablefacts.W illinm sv. Tavlor,529 U.S.362,412-13 (2000).A state court decision tmreasonably applies clearly established federal1aw ifthe courtidentifiesthecorrectlegalprinciple,butunreasonably applies it to the facts of the case. ld. at 413.It is not enough that a state court applied federal 1aw incorrectly;relief may only be granted ifthe application offederal1aw is unreasonable.Id.at 411.Factual determinations m ade by the state court are Gspresum ed to be correct,''and the petitionerhastheburden ofrebutting thatpresumption ofcorrectnessby Esclearand convincing 4 evidence.''j2254(e)(1).A federalhabeascourtmustreview theruling ofthestatecourtbased on the record beforethe statecourt,asttgiqtwould be strangeto ask federalcourtsto analyze . ' whetherastatecourt'sadjudicationresulted in adecision thatunzeasonably applied federal1aw to factsnotbeforethe state court.''zCullen v. Pinholster,563U.S.170,181-83(2011). Paggansdid notproceed to trialand instead pled guilty to the fourcharges againsthim . The state court found that the Com monwea1th was not required to disclose impeachment information before accepting Paggans'guilty pleas.In order to establish a Bradv violation,a defendantmustshow thatthegovernm entfailed to discloseCtevidencefavorableto an accused... wherethe evidence ismaterialeitherto guiltorto punishment,irrespective ofthe good faith or bad faith ofthe prosecution.''Bradv,373 U.S.at87.Evidence is favorable to the accused not only if itwould exculpate the accused,butalso if itcould be used to im peach a government witness.United Statesv.Ellis,121F.3d908,914 (4th Cir.1997).STheBrady right,however,is atrialright....and existsto preservethe fairnessofa trialverdictand to m inim ize the chance thatan irmocentperson would be found guilty.''United Statesv.M oussaoui,591F.3d 263,285 (4th Cir,2010).Esg-fqhe Uonstitution does not require the Government to disclose material impeachm ent evidence prior to entering a plea agreem entwith a criminaldefendant.''United Statesv.Ruiz,536U.S.622,628,633 (2002).Here,becausePagganspled guiltyandtherewas no trial, the Com monwea1th had no constitutional duty to disclose any impeachm ent information.3 See id. at 629, . M oussaoui, 591 F.3d at 285. l conclude that the state coul 's 2Paggans has subm itted severaldocuments thathe did notprese' ntto the state court.1w illnot consider these documents in my reviçw of Paggan's petition and the state court's decision.1 note, however,thateven ifIdid considerthosedocuments,they would notchange my analysis. 3The state courtalso found thateven if Pagganshad been entitled to Bradv inform ation,he had failed to demonstrate materiality necessary to establish a Bradv claim .The court noted that while it appeared that a crim inal investigation m ay have been under way concerning the chief ofthe Altavista Police Departm ent during the tim e that Paggans sold drugs to the confidential infol-m ants on four 5 adjudication ofPaggans'claim wasnotcontrary to,oran unreasonable application of,clearly established federal law and was not based on an unreasonable determ ination of the facts. Accordingly,Iwilldism issPaggans'petition. 111. For the reasons stated,the cout'twill grant respondent's motion to dismiss Paggans' j2254petition. tGdayofseptember, 2019. Ex-lx lu m this l SEN I R U N ITED STA TES D ISTRICT JUD G E occasions orwhen he entered his voluntary guilty pleas,Paggans had notshown any connection between theform erChief,orany otherofficerwho engaged in crim inalm isconduct,and hiscase.Thecourtnoted thatthe record revealed thatthe prosecutorreferred atthe guilty plea hearing to the drug investigation by theCam pbellCounty Sherriff'sOffice,and InvestigatorDw ayne W adeofthe CampbellCounty Sherriff's Departmenttestified atthe sentencing hearing regarding the controlled buysand Paggans'statem ents to him afterthe investigation ofhisactivitiesw as completed.The coul4 furtherfound thatwhile Investigator Penn of the A ltavista Police Department was part of the investigation team , Paggans had not demonstrated thatInvestigatorPennwasthesubjectofany criminalinvestigation atany time.Thecoul' t found that Paggans had not proflbred that any officer who paticipated in his case was involved in crim inalmisconductorthatany officerwhù waslaterconvicted ofa crim inaloffense wasinvolved in his case.Therefore,the courtconcluded thatPaggans had notdemonstrated thatthe form erAltavista Police Chief's criminalm isconduct, or crim inal m isconduct of any other Altavista police officer constituted im peachm entevidence materialtoPaggans'guiltorinnocence,ortothepunishm enthereceived. 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.
