United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
GARY B. WILLIAMS, Petitioner,
GREGORY HOLLOWAY, Respondent.
(GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS)
HENRY E. HUDSON, District Judge.
Gary B. Williams ("Williams"), a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition, " ECF No. 1) challenging his probation revocation in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia. Respondent Gregory Holloway ("Respondent") now moves to dismiss the § 2254 Petition (ECF No. 8), and Williams has responded thereto (ECF No 12). The matter is now ripe for disposition.
On February 25, 2014, the Court received Williams's § 2254 Petition. In his § 2254 Petition, Williams contends:
Claim One: The state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter a final judgment in the revocation proceedings. (§ 2254 Pet. at 6.)
Claim Two: He was "[d]enied right to direct appeal by unwanted counsel." ( Id . at 7.)
Claim Three: He was "[d]enied the right to testify in own behalf and to introduce material evidence in own behalf by biased trial court." ( Id. at 9.)
Claim Four: The "[s]tate revocation proceeding [was] unlawful in violation of plea agreement terms, and also result of unlawful sentencing...." ( Id. at 11.)
For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that Williams's claims are defaulted and lack merit.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 9, 2005, pursuant to a plea agreement, Williams pled guilty to one count of involuntary manslaughter in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia ("Circuit Court"). The Circuit Court sentenced Williams to five years of imprisonment with three years and eleven months suspended, resulting in a total active sentence of one year and one month of imprisonment. Commonwealth v. Williams, No. CR04-F-4668, at 1-2 (Va. Cir. Ct. Dec. 9, 2005).
On December 3, 2008, following Williams's indictment in this Court for narcotics violations, the Circuit Court ordered Williams to show cause as to why the suspended portion of his December 9, 2005 sentence should not be revoked. Commonwealth v. Williams, No. 04-F-4668-01/BBC, at 1 (Va. Cir. Ct. Dec. 3, 2008). On March 27, 2012, the Circuit Court found that Williams violated the terms of his December 9, 2005 suspended sentence. Commonwealth v. Williams, No. CR04-F-4668, at 1-2 (Va. Cir. Ct. Mar. 27, 2012). Accordingly, the Circuit Court revoked the previously suspended sentence, ordering Williams to serve three years and eleven months of imprisonment. Id. Williams filed no direct appeal.
C. State Habeas
On January 30, 2013, Williams filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court of Virginia. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1, Williams v. Dir. of the Dep't of Corr., No. 130213 (Va. filed Jan. 30, 2013). In his state habeas petition, Williams raised claims similar to those in the present § 2254 Petition. By Order entered August 12, 2013, the Supreme Court of Virginia found that both Claims One and Two lacked merit and Williams defaulted Claims Three and Four under the rule in Slayton v. Parrigan, 205 S.E.2d 680, 682 (Va. 1974) because Williams failed to raise these claims on direct appeal. Williams v. Dir. of the Dep't of Corr., No. 130213, at 1-4 (Va. May 1, 2013).
II. CLAIM ONE AND TWO ...