Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Blair v. Virginia Doc

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

May 10, 2017

JOSHUA D. BLAIR, Petitioner,
v.
VIRGINIA DOC, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Roderick C. Young United States Magistrate Judge.

         Joshua D. Blair, 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 City of Norfolk, 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. (ECF No. 13.) Blair has filed a Response. (ECF No. 17.) For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) will be GRANTED.

         I. PERTINENT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On November 14, 2012, a jury convicted Blair of one count of armed statutory burglary, three counts of robbery, three counts of abduction, six counts of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, conspiracy to commit armed burglary, conspiracy to commit robbery, and wearing a mask in public. Commonwealth v. Blair, Nos. CR11003413-00 through CR11003413-15, at 2 (Va. Cir. Ct. Jan. 2, 2013). On March 18, 2013, the Circuit Court entered final judgment and sentenced Blair to 126 years of incarceration, with 83 years suspended. Commonwealth v. Blair, Nos. CR11003413-00 through CR11003413-15, at 2-3 (Va. Cir. Ct. Mar. 18, 2013). Blair appealed. On September 24, 2013, the Court of Appeals of Virginia denied Blair's petition for appeal. (ECF No. 13-1, at 1-3.) On March 24, 2014, the Supreme Court of Virginia refused Blair's petition for appeal. (ECF No. 13-2, at 1.)

         On March 20, 2015, Blair filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court of Virginia. (ECF No. 13-3, at 17-59.) On September 24, 2015, the Supreme Court of Virginia granted Respondent's motion to dismiss and dismissed Blair's petition. (Id. at 1-3.)

         Blair filed his § 2254 Petition on November 17, 2016.[1] (ECF No. 1-2, at 1.) In his § 2254 Petition, Blair asserts the following claims for relief:

         Claim One "Trial counsel, Thomas Reed, failed to subpoena the codefendant, Pierre Brandon, to account for jail notes that were written by him[, ] which would have impeached prosecution's key witnesses Franklin Anderson and Derica Donofrio." (Mem. Supp. § 2254 Pet. 1, ECF No. 2.)[2]

         Claim Two "Trial counsel, Thomas Reed, failed to investigate and subpoena crucial alibi evidence of the cell tower information of Petitioner's phone. That was requested in the search warrant of the Petitioner's phone." (Id.)

         Claim Three "Prosecution's evidence was insufficient to have a conviction of elements to the crime. Based on the testimony of codefendants Franklin Anderson and Derica Donofrio. Which have many crucial inconsistencies within them and of each other. Also where physical evidence contradicts their testimony which should not if testimony is true. Which impeaches and discredits their testimony. As well as all prosecution's evidence to prove the Petitioner committed any element of the crime, which prosecution fails to prove." (Id. at 2.)

         II. ANALYSIS

         A. Statute of Limitations

         Respondent contends that the federal statute of limitations bars Blair'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 the judgment of a state court. Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) now reads:

1. A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of-
(A) the 1date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.