United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
JACKSON L. KISER SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Angelo Smith, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, challenging the validity of his confinement on a
judgment in the Lynchburg City Circuit Court for possession
of cocaine with the intent to distribute as a third or
subsequent offense. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, and
Smith responded, making the matter ripe for disposition.
After review of the record, I grant the motion to dismiss and
dismiss the petition.
pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with the intent to
distribute as a third or subsequent offense, and on September
9, 2011, the trial court entered final judgment, sentencing
him to ten years in prison, with four years suspended.
Smith's direct appeal and other postconviction motions
failed. Smith did not file a state habeas petition.
February 8, 2017, Smith filed the current petition, alleging:
1. Smith's probation officer, Catherine Wingfield,
falsely stated in the presentence report that she had
conducted a COMPAS evaluation which placed Smith in a
"high risk" category for future substance abuse and
he did not find out this information until he was sentenced;
2. Commonwealth's Attorney Michael Doucette committed
misconduct by forwarding the information regarding Officer
Wingfield to defense counsel, rather than the court; 3.
Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Rebecca Wetzel was
aware that the confidential information (Elizabeth Carey) had
been videotaped and confronted about inhaling, licking, and
touching cocaine purchased during a controlled buy that
occurred on March 26, 2011, and the prosecutor used this
tainted evidence against Smith.
seeks the vacation of his conviction, a new trial, and/or an
the Anti-terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a
one-year period of limitation for federal habeas corpus runs
from the latest of:
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for
seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application
created by State action in violation of the Constitution or
laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was
prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was
initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has
been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made