United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
JASON A. JACKSON, Petitioner
L. FLEMING, Respondent.
Jackson L. Kiser Senior United States District Judge
A. Jackson, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 to challenge the criminal judgment entered by the
Circuit Court of Bedford County. Respondent filed a motion to
dismiss, and Petitioner responded, making the matter ripe for
disposition. After reviewing the record, I grant
Respondent's motion to dismiss and dismiss the petition.
clerks, T. Miller and C. Martin, were working at a store in
Bedford County on March 30, 2011, when Petitioner entered
carrying a firearm and wearing gloves and a black knit cap
with the eyes cut out. Petitioner motioned with the firearm
for Martin, who was sweeping the floor, to get behind the
counter where Miller was standing. Petitioner then pointed
the firearm at Miller's head and said, "Give me the
money. Don't make me shoot you." Miller, who could
see bullets in the cylinder of the revolver, gave Petitioner
the money from the cash register. Petitioner left the store
and was arrested.
pleaded guilty to using a firearm in the commission of
robbery, being a felon in possession of a firearm and of
ammunition, wearing a mask in public, and two
robberies.The Circuit Court of Bedford County imposed
a fifty-year total term of incarceration with thirty years
appealed to the Court of Appeals of Virginia and the Supreme
Court of Virginia, claiming the evidence was insufficient to
prove two robberies and that the trial court erred by denying
Petitioner's motion to reconsider the sentences. On
August 19, 2013, the Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed the
sufficiency claim on procedural grounds and refused the
sentencing claim on the merits.
next filed a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court of
Virginia, arguing that his guilty pleas were invalid, trial
counsel was ineffective, and the second robbery conviction
violated double jeopardy. The Supreme Court dismissed the
petition after applying Anderson v. Warden. 222 Va.
511, 516, 281 S.E.2d 885, 888 (1981), and Slavton v.
Parrigan, 215 Va. 27, 29, 205 S.E.2d 680, 682 (1974), to
presents ten main claims in the timely-filed federal
petition. All but one claim involve the argument that the
second robbery conviction violates the Double Jeopardy Clause
of the Fifth Amendment, and the other claim challenges the
interpretation of a state law.
filed a motion to dismiss, conceding that the claims are
exhausted but arguing that the claims are either meritless or
procedurally defaulted. I agree and grant the motion to
heart of nine often claims is Petitioner's belief that
the second robbery conviction constitutes double jeopardy.
Petitioner believes that he committed only one robbery
despite the fact two clerks were in the store. The Supreme
Court of Virginia rejected all claims based on the double
jeopardy argument as either waived by the guilty pleas
pursuant to Anderson v. Warden, 222 Va. 511, 516,
281 S.E.2d 885, 888 (1981), or barred by Slavton v.
Parrigan. 215 Va. 27, 29, 205 S.E.2d 680, 682 (1974).
federal court may grant habeas relief from a state court
judgment "only on the ground that [the petitioner] is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). After a
state court addresses the merits of a claim also raised in a
federal habeas petition, a federal court may not grant the
petition unless the state court's adjudication of a claim
is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly
established federal law or based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
"[R]eview under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the
record that was before the state court that adjudicated the
claim on the merits." Cullen v. Pinholster, 563
U.S. 170, 180-81 (2011).
Supreme Court of Virginia's dismissal of claims pursuant
to Anderson was not contrary to, or an unreasonable
application of, clearly established federal law or based on
an unreasonable determination of the facts. In Blackledge
v. Allison,431 ...