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.

Dixon v. Clark

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

February 21, 2019

MARCUS LE'SHAWN DIXON, Petitioner,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARK, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          M. Hannah Lauck, United Stales District Judge

         Marcus Le'Shawn Dixon, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with this Court ("§ 2254 Petition," ECF No. 1). The matter is before the Court on the latest motion by Dixon challenging the Court's denial of his 2254 Petition. (See ECF No. 42.)

         I. Procedural History

In his § 2254 Petition and motion to amend, Dixon raised the following claims for relief:
Claim 1 The prosecutor engaged in misconduct.
(a) "[T]he prosecutor made improper comments during closing arguments." (Mem. Supp. § 2254 Pet. 3.)
(b) "[T]he prosecutor presented repetitious cross-examination of prejudicial collateral matters of the sells [sic] of crack cocaine." (Id. at 6 (citation omitted).)
(c) "[T]he prosecutor excercised [sic] bias by striking... African-American jurors, preventing them [from] serv[ing] in petitioner's trial, who is also African-American." (Id. at 8.)
Claim 2 Dixon failed to receive the effective assistance of counsel before and during his trial.
(a) "Dixon's counsel prejudiced him with the direct examination of prejudicial collateral matters of crack cocain[e]." (Id. at 12 (citation omitted).)
(b) "Petitioner's counsel prejudiced him when counsel failed to object when the prosecutor cross-examined petitioner about the same prejudicial collateral matters of crack cocaine." (Id. at 14.)
(c) "Dixon's counsel's performance prejudiced him when he failed to object to the prosecutor's improper statements during the closing arguments." (Id. at 15 (citations omitted).)
(d) '"Dixon's counsel was ineffective when he failed to object to the meritless nolle prosequi of indictments in the Gen. Dist. Court which deprived him of [the] right to a preliminary hearing." (Id. at 18.)
(e) "Petitioner's counsel was ineffective] and prejudiced petitioner when he failed to object to the prosecutor's ... peremptory challenges to remove ...

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.