Ealy v. Clark, No. 7:2018cv00284 - Document 8 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 12/07/2018. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICE U.S.DIST.COURT ATRG NOKE,VA FILED IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRIC T C OU RT FO R TH E W ESTER N DISTRICT OF V IR G INIA RO AN O K E DIW SIO N DE2 27 2218 BYJuL . ; D E JOH N M ARK EA LY , Petitioner, V. H ARO LD CLARK ,DIRECTO R, R espondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) E: èLERK C CASE NO.7:18CV00284 M EM OM NDUM OPINION By:Hon.GlenE.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge The petitioner,a V irginia inm ate proceeding pro K ,filed this action as a petition for a . writofhabeascorpus,pursuantto 28U.S.C.j2254. He seekscourt-ordered DNA testing of evidence from hisstate criminalcaseand habeascorpusrelieffrom the state courtjudgment underw hich hç isconfined.The courtconcludesthatthe petition m ustbesum m arily dism issed.1 A juryintheTazewellCountyCircuitCourtconvictedJohnMarkEaly ofraping achild undertheage ofthirteen years,in violation ofVirginia Code Ann.j 18.2-61,and oftaking indecentlibertiesw ith a child underthe age offourteen years,w ith w hom he had a custodialor supervisory relationship,inviolationofVirginiaCodeAnn. j 18.2-370.1(A)(vi).TheCourtof Appeals of Virginia affirm ed Ealy's convictions. Ealy v. Com ., N o. 2694-04-3,2006 W L 3798172 (Va.Ct.App.Dec.28,2006). Courtrecordsonline indicate thatEaly'ssubsequent appealto the Suprem e CourtofV irginia w as refused,and his petition forrehearing w as denied Ealy v. Clark Doc. 8 on September24,2007. 1 UnderRule4(b)oftheRulesGoverning j2254 Cases,the courtmay summarily dismissa j2254 petition ifitisclearfrom thepetitionand attachm entsthatthepetitionerisnotentitledto relieffrom thiscourt. Dockets.Justia.com - The courtofappealsheld that: gtlheevidenceestablisheldlthatEalymovedintohisgirlfriend'shomeinJanuary 2003. The victim ,Ealy's girlfriend's eleven-year-old daughter,also lived in the hom e. The victim testifed that Ealy began sexually abusing her soon after he m oved in w ith her m other. Eventually, Ealy had sexual intercourse w ith the victim aswell. The victim reported the abuse in M arch 2003. Ealy,2006 W L 3798172at*1. During the investigation of these crim es,the Com m onwealth seized item s of bed linen and a pair of adult-sized w om en's underpants. A ccording to Ealy, a forensics expert recom m ended,and the courtordered,DN A testing on al1of these item s for com parison to the DN A ofthe child's m other. The Com m onw ealth tested only the underpants and did notobtain the m other's DNA fortesting. Ealy pleaded notguilty and m aintained hisinnocence throughout the proceedings. H is attem pts to obtain additionalDNA testing were denied. Ealy complains thatattrial,the Com m onw ealth represented thatthe underpantsbelonged to the m inorvictim and used the results ofDN A testing ofthe underpants Gças a nexus ofphysicalfactsto convictEaly of sex w ith am inor.'' Pet.31,ECF N o.1. Ealy contendsthatCGthe M otherused herow n underwear to implicate(Ealy)in a sex actwiththe minor(daughterl.'' 1d.at23.Heclaimsthattesting availableatthetimeoftrialEscouldnotdistinguishbetweenparentandchildts)DNA,''butthat currently availabletestm ethodscould do so. ld. On October 17,2008,Ealy Gled a petition fora w ritofhabeascorpus in the circuitcourt that allegedly raised DN A issues. That court denied the petition, and on M ay 27, 2009,the Suptem e CourtofV irginia dism issed Ealy's habeasappealon proceduralgrounds. Ealy hasalso filed m otions in the trialcourtin 2010 and again in 2015,related to DN A testing. Both m otions were denied. ln denying the 2010 motion,the circuitcourtstated: 2 This cause came before the Courton Defendant's M otion for Collection and Testing ofHum an B iologicalEvidence. D efendant requests that biological testing of a sample from the victim 's m other...be conducted to elim inate her asthe contributorofthe specim en found on panties belonging to the victim and presented as evidence in the case against the D efendant. The V irginia CourtofAppeals issued a w ritten opinion in thiscase on August4, 2005 holding thatthe Tazew ellCounty CircuitCourtdid noterr in eliciting saliva samples from the Defendant in connection with the physicalevidence presented. Further the Court of Appeals found that expert analysis w as conducted on the panties and revealed a significantam ountofsperm on the panties consistentwith the D efendant's DN A ,as w ell as fluid m atching the victim 's DN A interspersed w ith the Defendant's sperm . Furtherthe forensic scientisttestitied thatno other DN A was found on the panties. Pet.Exhibits,at36,ECF N o.1-1. Ealy signed and dated this j2254 petition on June 17,2018,stating underpenalty of perjurythathewasalsoplacing hispetition intheprisonmailing system onthatdate. Ealy's petitionpresentsthefollowingcontentionsasgroundsforreliefunderj2254: 1. The courthasdiscretion under21 U.S.C.j848(q)(9)to ordernew DNA testing that is reasonably necessary to suppol't Ealy's claim of actual innocence; 2. The court is em pow ered to order the custodians of the evidence to m ake itavailableto a private entity fortesting; 3. The court is em pow ered to order the Com m onw ea1th to retain and preserve evidence forDNA testing; 4.. The deliberate deception of the trial court and jury through the presentation ofddknownfalseevidence''(incompleteDNA testing)violatedEaly's Sixthand FourteenthAmendmentrights,Pet.10,ECF No.19 5. No reasonablejurorwould have found Ealy guilty afterreview ofa complete DNA test; 6.ItisamiscarriageofjusticetocontinueincarceratingEalywhileDNA evidencew illprovethetestim ony to be fraudulent,m alicious,and im proper; 3 7. The courtshould review the W ritoflnnocence Pröcedure underVa. CodeAnn.j 19.2-37146),becausethe statecourterred and violated Ealy'sdue processrightsby denying reliefw ithoutatrialoran appeal; 8. Introduction into evidence and the record of a partialand incom plete DN A testwas m aterialand substantialm isrepresentation of facts,in violation of dueprocess; 9.VirginiaCodej19.2-270.4/),regardingstorageofDNA evidence,is unconstitutional,because this section is unenforceable againstthe Com m onwealth and lûhasbeen used to destroy evidence and prohibit im peachm entoffacts,''Pet. 18,ECF N o.1;&nd 10. VirginiaCode j19.2-327.1,allowingamotion by aconvicted felon forpost-conviction DNA testing,isunconstitutionalbecause such a m otion can be denied w ithouta hearing oran appeal; Ealy believes that this court should order DN A testing of evidence related to his conviction, conductan evidentiary hearing,and void and vacate the conviction. l1. A federalhabeascorpusunderj2254mustbefiledwithinoneyearfrom thelatestof: (A)the date on which thejudgmentbecame finalby the conclusion of directreview orthe expiration ofthetim e forseeking such review ; (B)thedateonwhich theimpedimenttofiling an application created by 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)the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court,ifthe righthas been new ly recognized by the Suprem e Courtand m ade retroactively applicableto caseson collateralreview ;or (D)the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise ofdue diligence. 28U.S.C.j2244(d)(1).Ifthedistrictcourtgivesthepetitionernoticethatthemotionappearsto be untim ely and allow s him an opportunity to provide any argum ent and evidence regarding tim eliness, and the petitioner fails to m ake the requisite show ing, the district court m ay summarilydismissthepetition.SeeHillv.Braxton,277F.3d701,707(4thCir.2002). 4 Upon receiving Ealy's petition,the court notiied him that it appeared to be untim ely t filed under j22444d) and granted him an opportunity to provide additionalinformation on tim eliness. Ealy hassubm itted a response. Bythetermsofj2244(d)(1)(A),aconvictionbecomesfinalwhenavailabledirectappeal proceedingsare exhausted. Ealy's directappeals in the state courtsconcluded on Septem ber24, 2007,when the Suprem e CourtofV irginia denied rehearing. H isconvictionsthen becam e final on Decem ber 24,2007,w hen his opportunity to Gle a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United StatesSupreme Courtexpired. See Sup.Ct.R.13(1)(timeto filepetition forwritof certiorariexpires90 daysafterehtl' y offinaljudgmentby higheststatecourt). Atthatpoint, Ealy'sfederalfilingperiodunderj2244(d)(1)(A)begantorun. The running ofthe statutory period is tolled during the pendency of properly filed state courtpostconviction proceedings. j2244(d)(2). Forpurposesofthisopinion,the coul'twill assum e thatEaly properly tiled his state habeaspetition on October 17,2008,and stopped the clock after 298 days of the federal filing period had elapsed. W hen the Suprem e Courtof Virginia dism issed Ealy's habeasappealon M ay 27,2009,how ever,the clock began to run once more. Ealy's filing period under j2244(d)(1)(A)expired 67 days lateron August3,2009. Bec>useEalyfsledhisj2254petitioninJuneof20l8,nearlynineyearsafterhisstatutoryfiling periodexpired,thepetitionisuntimelyfiledunderj2244(d)(1)(A). The only w ay Ealy m ay obtain review of his habeas claim s is to dem onstrate that the petitionistimelyunderj2244(d)(1)(B),(C),or(D),thatequitabletolling applies,ofthathehas madeacredibleshowingofçGactualinnocence''tojustify settingasidethestatuteoflimifations. SeeM couiazin v. Perkins,569U.S.383,386-87(2013). 2 Ealydoesnotcontendthathispetition 2 Thecourthasomlttedinternalquotationmarks,alterations,and/orcitationshereandelsewhereinthis opinion,unlessotherwisenoted. 5 istimely underanyoftheprovisionsin j22444*. Generally,equitabletollingoccursonlyifa petitioner shows EG(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently,and (2) that some extraordinary circum stance stood in his way and prevented tim ely filing.'' H olland v.Florida, 560U.S.631,649(2010).Ealymakesnosuchshowing. Instead,Ealy arguesthatbecause the evidence againsthim w as notsufficientto prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the court should excuse his untim eliness under the actual innocenceexception.In M couiRxin,theCourtheld that(iactualinnocence,ifproved,servesasa gatew ay through w hich a petitioner m ay pass''to obtain m erits review of otherwise untim ely habèas claims. 569 U.S.at387;Teleguz v.Zook,806 F.3d 803,807 (4th Cir.2015) (GGa com pelling show ing of actual innocence enables a federal courtto consider the m erits of a petitioner'sotherwisedefaultedclaims').Theactualinnocencegateway isararephenomenon: (IEAJpetitionerdoesnotmeetthethreshold requirementunlesshepersuadesthe districtcourt that,in lightofthe new evidence,nojuror,acting reasonably,would have voted to find him guilty beyond a reasonabledoubt'' Schlup v Delo,513 U.S.298,329 (1995:. ThisSlgnewl evidencemustestablishsufficientdoubtabout(apetitioner'slguilttojustifytheconclusionthat his(incarceration)would be amiscarriageofjusticeunlesshisconviction wastheproductofa fairtrial.''1d.at316(emphasisinoriginal). Actualinnocenceçsdoesnotbyitselfprovideabasis forrelief. Instead,(the petitioner'slclaim forreliefdependscritically on the validity ofhis (procedurally defaulted claiml.'' 1d.at315;see also Herrera v.Collins,506 U.S.390,403 (1993)). Moreover,the actualinnocence exception to defaultStmeansfactualinnocence,not merelegalinsuftkiency.''Bousleyv.UnitedStates,523U.S.614,623(1998). 6 Ealy's (lnew evidence'' allegedly show ing his actual innocence is the result of the additionalDN A testing that he seeks to obtain. H is theory centers on the fact that half of a human being'sDN A com esfrom each parent. On thatbasis,he contendsthatm ore sophisticated testing now available m ay dem onstrate thatthe DN A on the underpants was from the victini's m other,rather than from the victim . H e claim s that the new test results w ill im peach these witnesses'testim ony and Ssdetinitively establish who participated in the sex act'' Pet.46,ECF N o. 1. H e also contends that DN A testing of the bedding w illretlectno DNA from Ealy and thusprovide exculpatory evidence. In shorq he argues 'thatthe new testing willshow thatthe Commonwealth used incompletetestingtomislead thejul.yabouttheowneroftheunderpants, thusunderm ining confidence in the fairnessofhistrial. The courtcannottind from Ealy'ssubm issionsthathe hasm ade a sufsciently com pelling claim ofactualinnocencetoopenthegatewayheseeks.Thejuryheardtestimonythatthestate's DN A expertcould notsay that,w ith one hundred percentcertainty,the tluid on the underpants was from the victim. See gen.Pet.Attach.,at 12-21,ECF No.1-1. Thejury also heard testimony thatthe victim's mother (Ealy's former girlfriend) gave the underpants to the detective,statingthatthey belongedto thevictim. Id. Yèt,despitesuchtestimony,thejurors' verdict clearly retlected theirGnding thatthe victim 's testim ony aboutEaly's sexualabuse w as credible beyond a reasonable doubt. Even assum ing that new test results w ould find that the m other's DNA w as on the underpants and Ealy's DN A w as not on the bedding,Ealy fails to explain how these factswould underm ine the credibility ofthe victim 'sdescriptions ofthe abuse orshow his factualinnocence. Thus,the courtconcludes thatEaly has notm ade a com pelling showingthatno reasonablejurorcould tsndhim guiltyofthecrimesin lightofthenew DNA restflts he predicts. A s such, he cannot invoke the actual innocence exception to excuse his 7 failuretofileatimely j2254petition.Therefore,thecourtwilldismissthepetition asuntimely underj2244(d)(1). 111. In addition,many ofEaly'sclaimsarenotcognizableunderj2254 atany time. Tothe extqntthatEaly seeksthis court's orderforDN A testing,the petition m ustbe dism issed. Courts mustGçfocusllon theneed toensurethatthestateprisonersuseonly habeascorpus(orsimilar state)remedieswhenthey seek to invalidatetheduration oftheircontinement--eitherdirectly throughan injunctioncompelling speedierreleaseorindirectlythroughajudicialdetermination thatnecessarily im plies the unlaw fulness ofthe State's custody.'' W ilkinson v.Dotson,544 U .S. 74,81(2005).A claim forDNA testing,evenifsuccessful,wouldnotnecessarilyspellspeedier relea 'se from custody because m erely ordering DN A testing w ould not impact the length of Ealy'sincarceration. See,e.2.,Skinnerv.Switzer,562U.S.521,536(201l). Thus,such relief doesnotliew ithin $$the core ofhabeas corpus.''3 ld. Ealy alsocannotusej2254tochallengetothevalidityofthestatecourt'srulingsonhis post-conviction m otions understate law ,seeking DNA preservation and testing. A federalcourt maygranthabeasrelieffrom astatecourtjudgmentiûonlyonthegroundthat(thepetitionergisin custody in violation of the Constitution or Iaw s or treaties of the United States.'' 28 U .S.C. j22544$. gllt is not the province of a federal habeas courtto reexamine state-court determ inations on state-law questions. In conducting habeas review , a federal 3 No matterwhatlegalvehicle rem edy an inm ate may utilize,thereisnosubstantivedueprocessrightafter conviction to have DNA evidence preserved ortested, Dist.Attornev'sOffice forthe Third JudicialCircuitv. Osborne,557U.S.52,72 (2009). ,seealso Skinnerv.Switzer.562 U.S.521,525(2011). Such adefendantmay haveaprotectedççlibertyinterestin demonstratinghisinnocencewith new evidenceunderstatelam ''Osborne.557 U.S.at68,and may pursue a j 1923 proceduraldueprocess claim in thatcontext. Skinner,562 U.S.at524-25. Because Ealy hasnotnamed a proper defendant fora j 1923 action,the courtdeclines to construe his current submission asaj1983complaint. 8 courtislim ited to deciding whethera conviction violated the Constitution,law sor treatiesofthe United States. Estelle v.McGuire,502 U.S.62,67-69 (1991); W riahtv.AnRelone,151F.3d 151,157(4thCir.1998)(&$1tisblack letterlaw that afederalcourtmay granthabeasreliefonly onthegroundthat(thepetitioner)is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.'')(quotationmarksomitted).Becausethisparticularargumentrestssolely upon an interpretation of(stateqstatutory law,itis simply notcognizable on federalhabeasreview . Larryv.Branker,552F.3d 356,368(4th Cir.2009). Similarly,claimsalleging defectsin state post-conviction procedutes do not constitute grounds for federal habeas relief, because such claim s attack a collateralproceeding,notthe basis forthe detention itself. Trevino v.Johnson, 168F.3d173,180(5thCir.1999);Brvantv.Maryland,848F.2d492,493(4thCir!1988). Ealy'scontention thatthe state courtmisapplied state 1aw in adjudicating hismotions concenzing DN A testing is,in essence,an appeal. Low er federal courts,like this one,do not havejurisdiction to review thejudgmentsofstatecourtson appeal. Plylerv.Moore,129F.3d 728,731 (4th Cir. 1997). Jurisdiction for appellate review of state courtjudgments lies exclusively w ith superiorstate courtsand,ultim ately,with the U nited States Suprem e Court. ld.; 28U.S.C.j1257. Finally,Ealycites18U.S.C.j8484q)and Cherrixv.Braxton,13lF.Supp.2d756(E.D. Va.2001),assupportforhismotionforretesting ofevidence.The Cherrixdecision,however, concerned a form er statutory provision applicable only to habeas corpus actions challenging a defendant'sconviction forcapitalmurder. See 21U.S.C.j 848(q)(repealed). Accordingly, neitherj848(q)northeCherrixdecisionofferEalyagroundforreliefunderj2254. 9 W . Forthestatedre%ons,thecourtconcludestbntEaly'sj2254petitionmustbesllmmarily dismissed as tmtlmely ftled and/or as raising clnlmK not cognizable tmder j2254. An appkopriateorderwlllenterthisday. The Clerk is direded to send copies of this memorl dum ophioh and accompanying orderto Ealy. ENIYR:This n< dayofDecember, 2018. SeniorUnited StatesDisG ctJudge 10
]]>
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.
