Hall v. Clark, No. 7:2018cv00577 - Document 6 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 12/20/2018. (ck)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
#- . N -ERK'OFFICE U,B.DtST.COURT ATROANOKE,VA FILED DE IN TH E UNITED STATES DISTR ICT C OU RT FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OFVIRGINIA 2 29:8 JULI C. D K BY: z' ., DEP X LERK RO AN O K E D IW SIO N R OBERT CH AR LES H A LL, Petitioner, V. HAROLD CLARK,:I AL , Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.7:18CV00577 G M ORANDUM OPINION By:Hon.GlenE.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge RobertCharlesH all,a V irginia inm ate proceeding pro K ,filed thispetition fora w ritof . habeascorpus,pursuantto 28 U.S.C.j2254,challenging hisconfnementundera2017 state courtcriminaljudgment. Upon review oftherecord,thecoul' tconcludesthatthepetition must besummarilydismissedwithoutprejudicetoallow Halltoexhauststatecourtremedies. On January 5, 2017, the N elson County Circuit Court sentenced H all to consecutive eight-year terms of imprisonment for convictions of forcible sodomy and object sexual penetration. His appeals, which were unsuccessful, concluded when the Suprem e Court of V irginiadenied hispetition forrehearing on October5,2018. Hallfsledhisj2254 petitioninNovemberof2018. Heallegesthatheisincustody in violation oftheConstitutionbecause(1)theevidencewasinsuffcienttosupporthisconvictions and (2)histrialattorney provided ineffective assistance. Hallstatesthathehasnotfsled any other court actions related to these convictions. Sim ilarly, state court records online do not reflect that H all has filed any petition for a w rit of habeas corpus in the circuit court or the Hall v. Clark Doc. 6 Suprem e CourtofV irginia. Under 28 U.S.C.j 2254(19,a federalcourtcannot grant a habeas petition unless petitioner has exhausted the rem edies available in the courts of the state in w hich he was convicted. The exhaustion requirem entis satistsed by seeking review ofthe claim s in the highest Dockets.Justia.com statecourtwithjurisdictionto considertheclaims. SeeO'Sullivan v.Boerckel,526U.S.838, 845(1999).lnVirginia,Sslcllaimsraisingineffectiveassistanceofcounselmustbeassertedina habeas corpus proceeding and are not cognizable on direct appeal.'' Lenz v.Com m onw ealth, 544 S.E.2d 299,304 (Va.2001). To exhausthis state courtremedies,Hallcan file a state habeaspetition in the circuitcourtw herehe w asconvicted,with an appealofan adverse decision totheSupremeCourtofVirginia,Va.CodeAnn.j8.01-654(a)(1);j 17.1-406(B),orhecanfile a state habeas petition directly with the Supreme Court of Virginia. j8.01-654(a)(1). W hichever route he follow s, he must ultim ately present his claim s to the Suprem e Court of Virjiniaandreceivearulingbeforeafederaldistrictcourtcouldgrantreliefunderj2254onan ineffective assistance claim. Ifa j2254 petitionerhasnotpresented hishabeasclaimsto the statecourtsand could stilldo so,afederalcourtshoulddismisshispetitionwithoutprejudice. Slavtonv.Smith,404U.S.53,54(1971). H all indicates that he raised his insufficient evidence claim to the Virginia Court of A ppeals and the Suprem e CourtofV irginia in his directappealproceedings. A s such,he has exhausted state courtrem edies as to this claim . Halladm its,how ever,thathe has notpresented his ineffective assistance of counselclaim s to any state court. He could stilldo so by filing a statr habeas corpus proceeding as described above. See Va.Code Ann.j8.0l-654(A)(2) (providingthathabeaspetition attacking criminalconviction orsentenceGishallbefiled within one yearfrop Gnaldisposition ofdirectappeal). Thus,he hasnotsatisûed the exhaustion requirementunderj2254*)astotheseclaims.Generally,adistrictcourtmustdismisswithout prejudiceahabeaspetition containingbothunexhaustedandexhaustedclaims.1 Rosev.Lundv, 455U.S.509,522 (1982).Thecourtfndsitappropriatetodo sointhiscase.Dismissalofthe 1 Under28 U .S. C.j 2254(18,whereitisclearthatan unexhaustedclaim iswithoutmerit,the courtm ay deny reliefon thatclaim .Thecoul' tmakesno such tinding inthiscase. petiion withoutprejudiceleavesHallt+ 1tllthechoiceofretllrnlngtostatecourttoexhaustlkis clalmKorofamendingorresubm xingthehabeaspetxon to presentonly exhsustedclnlmstothe dlstrictcoue''1d.at510.Hk1iskdvised,however,tllatinmostcaes,astatelnmsteonlyhas one chance to prosecuk a federalhal ascorpuspetltion. IfHallpursuesonly llislnsllm clent N evldenceclnlmqin aj2254petitionnow,O dwaitsto5lehisineFecuveassistanceclsimgina second û2254pee on atsomelatertlme,thelaterpetiEon w111likelybesllmmnrlly disM ssed under28U.S.C.j22541)assuccessive.Heis'alsoaIV sedthathehasallmltedtimetofilea j2254petitiow although thattlmeperiodwillstopnmnlngwhileproperly fled habeascorpus proéeee gsareproceedingi!lstatecourt. See28UUS.C.j2244(d).Attheconclusion ofstate habeasproceedings,lf HaIIis dlssatissed with the r-mlltylze may then raise a11ofhis habeas cblmqin thisCOU/ in a new 5 2254 petiuon thatwillnotbe consldered successive lmder j225409. Forthereasonsstated,the courtdismlssesG smlxed petxon wiioutpreju' dice. An appropriate orderwillenterthl 'qday. TheClerk lsdirected to send coplesofthismemorandum oplnion and accompanying orderto thepeo oner. ENTER:TMs* dayofDecember,2018. sekiorUnltedsutesDisictJudge 3
]]>
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.
