Cofield v. Director of Department of Corrections

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge

Ferron Cofield, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition, " ECF No. 1) challenging his August 10, 2011 probation revocation. Respondent moves to dismiss, inter alia, on the ground that the one-year statute of limitations governing federal habeas petitions bars the § 2254 Petition. Although Respondent provided Roseboro^[1] notice, Cofield has not responded. The matter is ripe for disposition.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. State Proceedings

Between 1997 and 2011, the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach (''Circuit Court") convicted Cofield of at least four drug offenses. Cofield also repeatedly violated the terms of his probation imposed in conjunction with the suspended sentences for these convictions.

Most relevant to the instant § 2254 Petition, on August 23, 2011, the Circuit Court found Cofield in violation of his terms of probation, and ordered Cofield to serve the six years and four months remaining on his sentence. Commonwealth v. Cofield, Nos. CR-97-2306, CR00-1418, at 1-2 (Va. Cir. Ct. Aug. 23, 2011); (§ 2254 Pet. 2.).^[2] Cofield filed no appeal.

On August 23, 2012, ^[3] Cofield filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 8, Cofield v. Dir. of the Dep't of Corr., No. CL12-4637 (Va. Cir. Ct. filed Aug. 23, 2012). On November 26, 2012, the Circuit Court dismissed the petition. Cofield v. Dir. of the Dep't of Corr., No. CL12-4637, at 1-6 (Va. Cir. Ct. Nov. 26, 2012). Cofield filed no appeal of this decision.

B. Federal Habeas Petition

On November 19, 2013, Cofield filed his § 2254 Petition in this Court. (§ 2254 Pet. 14.)^[4] In his rambling § 2254 Petition, the Court construes Cofield to raise the following claims for relief:

Claim One: Counsel rendered ineffective assistance when she failed to raise "potential affirmative defenses of insanity by reason of irresistible impulse and settled insanity." (Br. Supp. § 2254 Pet. 4, ECF No. 1-1.)^[5]

Claim Two: Counsel "[sh]ould've challenged the violation on mitigating factors, such as my mental health issues" on appeal. (Id.)

Claim Three: Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not adequately representing Cofield and by not fully presenting Cofield's explaining substance abuse issues and mental illness to the Circuit Court.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Statute Of Limitations