Perkins v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 7:2019cv00817 - Document 4 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 12/12/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Perkins v. Commonwealth of Virginia Doc. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION JOHNNIE DARNELL PERKINS, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 7:19CV00817 MEMORANDUM OPINION By: Hon. Glen E. Conrad Senior United States District Judge Petitioner Johnnie Darnell Perkins, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges the July 2019 judgment of the Rockingham County Circuit Court under which he stands convicted of a drug offense and sentenced to serve prison time. Perkins’ appeal from that judgment is currently pending before the Court of Appeals of Virginia. Upon review of the record, the court concludes that the petition must be summarily dismissed without prejudice, because Perkins has not yet exhausted available state court remedies. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), a federal court like this one cannot grant a habeas petition unless the petitioner has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the state in which he was convicted. The exhaustion requirement is satisfied by seeking review of the claims, throughout the state court system, to the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider the claims. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). If a § 2254 petitioner still has available state court proceedings in which he can litigate his habeas claims, the federal court should dismiss his § 2254 petition without prejudice to allow him to exhaust those state court remedies. Slayton v. Smith, 404 U.S. 53, 54 (1971). Perkins alleges that the prosecution breached his plea agreement, tampered with evidence, and obstructed justice—claims that can be raised on direct appeal, which Perkins is Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
