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.

Rodgers v. Hamilton

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

November 7, 2017

Stefan Odell Rodgers, Petitioner,
v.
Warden Hamilton, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ANTHONY J. TRER.GA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Stefan 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.

         I. Background

         On 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 years suspended.

         Rodgers 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 was denied.

         Petitioner 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, 2015).

         On October 30, 2015, Rodgers filed a petition for a state writ of habeas corpus in the trial court, raising the following claims:

         A. His 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.

         B. The Commonwealth's Attorney was guilty of prosecutorial misconduct.

         C. The 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 ...


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.