United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division
ANTHONY J. TRER.GA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Odell Rodgers, 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 convictions
entered in the Circuit Court of King and Queen County. Case
Nos. CR12-15-00 - CR12-15-06. Before the Court is the
respondent's Motion to Dismiss the petition.
March 6, 2013, Rodgers was found guilty following a bench
trial of seven counts of distribution of cocaine, second
offense. He was sentenced to 140 years imprisonment with 105
pursued a direct appeal before the Court of Appeals of
Virginia, raising the sole claim that the evidence was
insufficient to sustain the convictions because the trial
court erroneously accepted the unsubstantiated and unreliable
testimony of a confidential informant. A judge of that court
denied the petition for appeal on October 31, 2013.
Rodgers v. Commonwealth. R. No. 0821-13-2 (Va. Ct.
App. Oct. 31, 2013); Resp. Ex. A. On January 14, 2014,
petitioner's request for review by a three-judge panel
sought further review by the Supreme Court of Virginia. His
petition for appeal was refused on November 25, 2014.
Rodgers v. Commonwealth. R. No. 141024 (Va. Nov. 25,
October 30, 2015, Rodgers filed a petition for a state writ
of habeas corpus in the trial court, raising the following
trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by:
1. Failing to perfect his appeal;
2. Making mistakes and errors during trial;
3. Failing to properly test the Commonwealth's case;
4. Failing to object to the admission of irrelevant evidence;
and 5. Failing to preserve issues for appeal.
Commonwealth's Attorney was guilty of prosecutorial
evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction
"because there existed no credible evidence of the
transactions alleged." In an Order entered on December
23, 2015, the circuit court denied and dismissed the
petition. Specifically, it determined that claim A should be
dismissed because petitioner had failed to show that his
attorney was ineffective pursuant to Strickland v.
Washington. 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and that because claims
B and C could have been raised at trial and on direct appeal,
they were barred by the doctrine of Slavton v.
Parrigan. 215 Va. 27, 205 S.E.2d 680 (1974) and were not
cognizable in habeas corpus. Case No. CL15000066-00; Resp.
Ex. B. Rodgers appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of
Virginia, and that Court dismissed the appeal pursuant to
Rule 5:17(c)(1)(iii) on the holding that "the
assignments of error in the petition for appeal ...