United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
K. MOON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Lamont Langhorne, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro
se, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the validity
of his confinement on a judgment by the Fluvanna County
Circuit Court. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss
Langhorne's § 2254 petition, and Langhorne
responded, making the matter ripe for disposition. After
review of the record, I grant the motion to dismiss.
Lamont Langhorne was convicted by a Fluvanna County Circuit
Court of habitual offender status and felony eluding the
police. On May 31, 2013, the circuit court entered a final
order sentencing Langhorne to seven years in prison. He
appealed, but the Court of Appeals of Virginia denied his
petition. Thereafter, a three-judge panel affirmed the
appellate court's denial. On September 2, 2014, the
Supreme Court of Virginia refused review.
April 24, 2015, Langhorne moved to set aside his conviction,
but the circuit court denied his motion on August 24, 2015.
Langhorne did not appeal.
September 10, 2015, Langhorne filed a “Writ of Error
Coram Nobis and Motion to Vacate, Set Aside and Declare Null
and Void a Defendant's Judgment and Conviction” in
the Fluvanna County Circuit Court. On January 13, 2016, the
circuit court denied Langhorne's petition because he had
not alleged any clerical error or error in fact. Langhorne
appealed, but on December 15, 2016, the Supreme Court of
Virginia affirmed the circuit court's
January 3, 2017, Langhorne filed the present petition.
Thereafter, on March 31, 2017, he amended his petition,
alleging the following four claims:
a. “Deprived of his constitutional rights . . .
violation of U.S. Constitution Amendment 1, 6, and 14”
(Am. Pet. 5);
b. “Miscarriage of justice . . . to allow an ex post
facto violation to go on without correcting it and also not
following proper procedures” (Am. Pet. 7);
c. “Ex post facto law . . . The trial court abolished
the habitual offender law and is violating the ex post facto
law by convicting and sentencing [Langhorne] under the
habitual offender law after it was abolished on July 1, 1999
which is cruel and unusual punishment because sentencing
[Langhorne] under the habitual offender law the punishment is
more severe” (Am. Pet. 8); and
d. “Ineffective assistance of counsel . . . Court
failed to follow proper procedures and attorney failed to
object to the miscarriage of justice and the court's
depriving Langhorne [of] an opportunity to assert his
innocence” (Am. Pet. 11).
Exhaustion and ...