United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division
M. Brinkema United States District Judge
Wilfredo Solano Godoy, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se,
has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the constitutionality of
his conviction of rape, forcible sodomy and other offenses
following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Fairfax
County. Before this Court is the respondent's Motion to
Dismiss this petition.
was charged with, and convicted of, burglary, rape, forcible
sodomy, and two counts of object sexual penetration. Case No.
FE-2011-1290. He was sentenced to an aggregate of forty-five
(45) years imprisonment with ten (10) years suspended. In its
opinion affirming Godoy's convictions, the Court of
Appeals of Virginia described the underlying facts as follow:
At trial, the Commonwealth presented evidence that appellant
used various tools to pry open the balcony door of
K.A.A.'s apartment and entered her bedroom in the early
morning hours of June 4, 2011. K.A.A. awoke to see a masked
individual picking up her infant child from her bed and
placing the infant in his crib nearby. When K.A.A. asked who
was there, appellant approached her and brandished a large
knife, which he dragged across the length of her body while
indicating she remain quiet. Appellant then raped and
sodomized K.A.A. repeatedly, at one point threatening to
return the following day and kill her.
Following the attack, appellant demonstrated to K.A.A. that
he had not harmed her three children who were sleeping in a
He left shortly thereafter, and K.A.A. called a friend [and]
then contacted 911. K.A.A. subsequently was examined by a
trained sexual assault nurse, who observed abrasions and
redness consistent with forcible rape. In inspecting
K.A.A.'s apartment, police found fingerprints and a shoe
impression on the balcony railing. They also found a bottle
of bleach apparently used for the purpose of removing
evidence of the prints, as well as fingerprints on a number
of tools located on the balcony. The knife appellant used was
discovered on the floor of K.A.A.'s bedroom. Police
apprehended appellant after showing a sketch of the
perpetrator to K.A.A.'s colleagues at work, one of whom
recognized appellant as a former employee.
Appellant presented evidence in his defense that he and
K.A.A. had been conducting an affair and that she had invited
him to her apartment on the night of the offense. According
to appellant, K.A. A. became angry with him throughout the
course of the evening because he was attempting to break off
the relationship, causing him to retreat to the balcony at
one point. While appellant was on the balcony, his cellular
telephone began to ring with a unique ringtone that signified
his wife was calling. Appellant claimed that K.A.A. grabbed
the telephone, locked the balcony door with appellant still
outside, and proceeded to taunt appellant, indicating that
she would answer the call and report their affair to his
wife. Appellant then attempted to pry open the balcony doors,
using tools that he found outside. K.A. A., however, chose
not to answer the phone and eventually let appellant back
inside the apartment.
Appellant admitted that he had sexual intercourse with K.A.A.
and that he touched her sexually in the various ways alleged
in the Commonwealth's case-in-chief, but stated that all
of the acts were consensual. He stated that he already knew
how to get to K.A.A.'s apartment because he had visited
on a previous occasion to discuss purchasing an auto part
from her boyfriend.
Godoy v. Commonwealth. 62 Va.App. 113, 116-17, 742
S.E.2d 407, 409 (May 28, 2013). The Supreme Court of Virginia
refused Godoy's petition for a further appeal on December
12, 2103, and refused rehearing on March 7, 2014.
March 9, 2015, Godoy timely filed a petition for a state writ
of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Virginia, raising
the following claims:
1. He received ineffective assistance of counsel when his
attorney allowed testimony and evidence to be presented to
the jury in violation of the Confrontation Clause.
2. He received ineffective assistance of counsel when his
attorney failed to present defense witnesses to contradict
the prosecution's evidence.
3. His right to due process was violated when the prosecution
submitted improper and prejudicial comments to the jury, thus
denying him a fair and impartial trial.
4. He received ineffective assistance of counsel when his
attorney failed to object to the prosecution's improper
and prejudicial comments to the jury.
5. He received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
when his attorney failed to argue against the
prosecution's improper and prejudicial comments to the
jury, involving the ends of justice exception to overcome his
failure to preserve at trial.
6. He received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
when his attorney failed to argue that the evidence was
insufficient to establish his guilt.
7. His right to due process was violated because the evidence
in its totality was insufficient to support guilt of each
element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed the petition on November
17, 2015. Godoy v. Director. Va. Dep't of ...