United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division
Kenneth C. Hall, Petitioner,
Harold W. Clarke, Respondent.
Anthony J. Trenga United States Distinct Judge
Carlos Hall ("Hall" or "petitioner"), a
Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
claiming that his trial and conviction were plagued by
reversible error. On December 13, 2018, respondent, through
counsel, filed a Motion to Dismiss and Rule 5 Answer
supported by a legal brief and documentary exhibits. Dkt.
Nos. 13-15. Petitioner later filed two oppositions to
respondent's Motion. Dkt. Nos. 20, 22. For the reasons
outlined below, respondent's Motion to Dismiss will be
granted, and the underlying petition for writ of habeas
corpus will be dismissed.
April 10, 2014, a judge of the Circuit Court of Loudoun
County found petitioner guilty of possession of burglarious
tools and felony petit larceny, third or subsequent
offense.Dkt. No. 15-1. On September 24, 2014, the
Circuit Court imposed upon Hall a sentence of fifteen years
imprisonment with ten years and seven months of that period
suspended, resulting in an active sentence of four years and
five months. Id.
did not timely appeal his convictions. Record No. 151459.
Instead, he filed actions in this Court and in the Supreme
Court of Virginia. First, on September 19, 2014, petitioner
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court.
See No. 1: 14cv1255 (AJT/TRJ). The action was dismissed based
on petitioner's failure to exhaust state remedies.
See id., Dkt. No. 3. Then, on September 21, 2015,
Hall filed in the Supreme Court of Virginia a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus, raising four claims. Record No.
151459. On June 20, 2016, the state supreme court granted the
writ solely as to the issue of petitioner's right to
directly appeal his conviction out-of-time. Id. It
dismissed the remaining three claims without prejudice to
Hall's right to later refile a second
to the writ granted by the Supreme Court of Virginia, on
September 16, 2016,, petitioner, representing himself, filed
a delayed direct appeal in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,
raising the following grounds:
1.) The trial court erred in denying Mr. Hall's Motion to
Suppress and refusing to hear or rule on Mr. Hall's
Supplement [sic] Motion to Suppress....
2.) The trial court erred in denying Mr. Hall's verbal
motion for recusal....
3.) The trial court erred in denying Mr. Hall his right to
counsel for an appeal....
4.) The trial court erred in denying Mr. Hall's first
motion to set aside judgment....
5.) The trial court erred in admitting video evidence that
6.) The trial court erred in admitting evidence that had not
been tested as ordered by the court....
7.) The trial court erred in restricting Mr. Hall from
cross-examining the Commonwealth's only alleged eye
witness with respect to his conflicting and inconsistent
statements [regarding a peg hook security device]....
8.) The trial court erred in restricting Mr. Hall from
cross-examining the only alleged witness for the Commonwealth
with respect to his conflicting and inconsistent statements
[regarding defendant's actions within a Target store]....
9.) The trial court erred in using hearsay evidence for the
truth of a matter asserted [in determining Mr. Hall's
10.) The trial court erred in denying Mr. Hall's Motion
Record No. 1544-16-4. Through a per curiam order dated April
5, 2017, the Court of Appeals denied Hall's appeal.
Id. On May 22, 2018, the Supreme Court of
Virginia refused the petition for appeal. Record No.
171159. Having unsuccessfully pursued several claims on
direct appeal, petitioner filed the petition currently at
issue, raising the following eight claims:
1.) "Malicious prosecution; conspiracy to suborn
perjury" in that "the record evidence shows that
the only alleged eyewitness for the Commonwealth prosecution
gave law-enforcement materially false statement and then came
to court and gave the same materially false statement at the
preliminary hearing" regarding Hall's use of an
2.) "Malicious prosecution; conspiracy to suborn
perjury" in that Deputy Leonard falsely testified about
whether Hall was "found to be ... in possession of a
[burglarious] tool" and relied on such false information
in the affidavit in support of an arrest warrant for
3.) "Prosecutorial misconduct" occurred when the
Commonwealth's prosecutor pursued charges against him
based on false claims by a store employee and when the
employee repeated those false claims on the stand.
4.) "Insufficient Evidence for Probable Cause" as
to charges of possession of burglarious tools ...