United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
Roderick C. Young United States Magistrate Judge
Ray Chapman, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro
se, brings this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254 ("§ 2254 Petition, " ECF No. 1)
challenging his convictions in the Circuit Court for the
County of Southampton, Virginia ("Circuit Court").
Respondent moves to dismiss on the ground that, inter
alia, the one-year statute of limitations governing
federal habeas petitions bars the § 2254 Petition. For
the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.
15) will be GRANTED.
PERTINENT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
11, 2013, the Circuit Court entered final judgment and
sentenced Chapman to an active prison term of twelve years
and six months for possession with intent to distribute 227
grams of melhamphetamine and felony child abuse. (ECF No.
17-2, at \-A.) Chapman did not appeal.
September 27, 2013, Chapman filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus with the Circuit Court ("First State
Habeas Petition"). (ECF No. 17-3, at 1.) On January 28,
2014, the Circuit Court denied the First State Habeas
Petition. (ECF No. 17-4, at 5.) Chapman did not appeal.
28, 2015, Chapman filed a second petition for a writ of
habeas corpus with the Supreme Court of Virginia
("Second State Petition"). (ECF No. 17-5, at 1.) On
November 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed
the Second State Petition. (Id.)
December 1, 2015, Chapman filed his § 2254 Petition in
this Court. (§ 2254 Pet.15.) In his § 2254
Petition, Chapman asserts the following claims for
Claim One "The state court erred when it denied
Petitioner's state habeas corpus as contrary to clear and
overwhelming evidence of ineffective assistance of
counsel." (Id. at 6.)
Claim Two Chapman was denied the effective assistance of
counsel when counsel, "by letter of August 6, 2013,
" refused Chapman's request that counsel file an
appeal. (ECF No. 2, at 3 (as paginated by CM/ECF).)
Claim Three My attorney pressured me into pleading guilty.
(Id. at 3-4 (as paginated by CM/ECF).)
first claim does not provide any basis for federal habeas
relief. "[C]laims of error occurring in a state
post-conviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for
federal habeas corpus relief." Bryant v.
Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988) (citing
cases). This is so because Chapman is detained as a result of
the underlying state conviction, not the state collateral
proceeding. See Lawrence v. Branker, 517 F.3d 700,
717 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, Claim One will be
Statute of Limitations
contends that the federal statute of limitations bars
Chapman's claims. Section 101 of the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") amended 28
U.S.C. § 2244 to establish a one-year period of
limitation for the filing of a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus by a person in custody pursuant to ...