United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division
Bruce Lee United States District Judge.
Matter comes before the Court on respondent's Renewed
Motion to Dismiss a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 filed by Lamarr Barthell
Dingle, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se. Dingle
challenges the constitutionality of convictions entered in
the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk.
16, 2013, following a bench trial, petitioner was convicted
of attempted murder and aggravated malicious wounding. He
received a sentence of 35 years incarceration, with 25 years
suspended. Case Nos. CR12001741-00 - 01.
appealed his convictions, arguing that: (1) the trial judge
erred when she stated that it was irrelevant whether or not
the victim had broken into petitioner's house; and (2)
the trial court erred by refusing to allow him to testify
about his educational and employment backgrounds. The Court
of Appeals denied the petition for appeal on December 17,
2013. Dingle v. Commonwealth. R. No. 1329-13-1 (Va.
Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2013). The Supreme Court of Virginia
refused a petition for further review on August 15, 2014.
Dingle v. Commonwealth. R. No. 140120 (Va. Aug. 14,
2014). Dingle's petition for a writ of certiorari was
denied by the United States Supreme Court on June 1, 2015.
Dingle v. Va., Case No. 14-9098.
next filed a petition for a state writ of habeas corpus in
the Supreme Court of Virginia in which he advanced the
Exclusion of evidence and witnesses:
1. The doctor was not present at trial to testify as a
2. The medical records do not match the victim's
testimony at any of the court proceedings.
3. The judge did not consider or weigh all the evidence.
4. The victim is not a medical expert and her testimony was
inadmissible at trial.
5. The judge did not allow all the evidence to be admitted at
6. The medical records were not presented as part of the
exhibits or as exculpatory evidence at the trial.
7. His rights to due process and a fair trial were violated
when the doctor was not subpoenaed as a witness at trial.
received ineffective assistance of counsel for the following
1. Counsel's performance fell below the standard of
reasonableness and the outcome of the trial would have been
different if counsel had performed effectively.
2. Counsel failed to investigate favorable medical reports
and did not secure or present the testimony of the
victim's treating physician at trial.
3. Counsel failed to investigate the facts and circumstances
and failed to object to evidence presented ...