Bellamy v. Graham

Decision Date16 February 2022
Docket NumberCivil Action GJH-19-2230
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maryland
PartiesREGINALD W. BELLAMY, Petitioner, v. RICHARD J. GRAHAM, JR., Warden, MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

GEORGE J. HAZEL, United States District Judge

In their Answer to the above-entitled Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Respondents assert that a number of Petitioner's claims are procedurally defaulted and the remaining claims are without merit. ECF No. 8. Petitioner Reginald W. Bellamy, who proceeds pro se, has responded. ECF No. 9. No. hearing is necessary to resolve the matters pending. See Rule 8(a) Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts and Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2021); see also Fisher v. Lee, 215 F.3d 438, 455 (4th Cir. 2000) (petitioner not entitled to a hearing under 28 U.S.C §2254(e)(2)). For the reasons set forth below, the Petition shall be dismissed and a certificate of appealability shall not issue.

I. Background
A. Trial

After a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City lasting from September 24, 2014 through October 1, 2014, Bellamy was convicted of the October 20, 2004, first-degree rape, first- degree sex offense, attempted first-degree sex offense, second-degree assault, and false imprisonment of D.C[1]

The evidence at trial established that Bellamy, presenting himself as a police officer, approached a woman on the streets of Baltimore City, handcuffed her at gunpoint, claiming she was under arrest, drove her to a remote location, and raped her. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland summarized the evidence as follows:

In the early morning hours of October 20, 2004, the female victim, D.C., was walking on Garrison Boulevard, in Baltimore City, when a man, presenting himself as a police officer, emerged from a vehicle and approached her. The man told D.C. that she was under arrest, pressed his gun on her, and handcuffed her. While D.C. was detained, the man collected her identification and asked her questions before placing her in the backseat of his car, where she waited for five to eight minutes.
The man then drove D.C. to a remote parking lot, where at gunpoint he ordered D.C. to remove her clothes. The man put on a condom, made D.C. perform fellatio, and had vaginal intercourse with her without her consent. He then attempted to have anal intercourse, at which time his condom ruptured, and he ejaculated “on the back of [her] butt going down [her] legs.” As D.C. was putting her clothes back on, the man pushed her out of the car, and drove away.
D.C. walked to the home of her cousin, who took her to Bon Secours Hospital. There, D.C. was interviewed by police. She reported that the vehicle driven by her attacker-a black man, standing approximately 6'2” tall, and weighing approximately 180 pounds-had Maryland license plate MGG 435, which police later discovered was registered to Bellamy. D.C. was then transported to Mercy Hospital, where she underwent a medical examination.
The examining nurse observed no injuries to D.C.'s body but did find superficial lacerations in her vaginal and anal areas. The nurse took swabs from D.C.'s vagina and of a fluid found on the back of D.C.'s right thigh. D.C. informed the nurse that she had had consensual sex on the day prior to the attack. At trial, the examining nurse testified that the injuries observed were consistent with D.C.'s description of events but that they could also have been caused by the previous day's consensual sex. The examining nurse sealed the swabs and placed them on a rack to dry. She left the swabs in a locked room while transporting D.C. to the emergency room. Upon returning she placed the swabs in individually labeled envelopes, placed those in a larger envelope, and signed the larger envelope's seal.
Separately, officers executed a search and seizure warrant for Bellamy's DNA, based upon the registration of the license plate reported by the victim. Detective Sarah Connelly, the primary investigator at the time, collected swabs and sealed them in a container.
A serology expert removed the Sexual Assault Forensic Examiners kit from the secured vault and tested it, revealing sperm. The sperm and blood samples were sent to a DNA analyst with Bode Technology Group (“Bode”). Analysis of the vaginal sample revealed a mixture of DNA from D.C. and Roberto Gomez, and the thigh sample contained DNA from Bellamy.
In 2012, Bellamy was charged and indicted on multiple counts arising from the incident.5 At trial, neither party offered any evidence of tampering or mishandling of any of the samples. To the contrary, the signed seals placed at each stage of the process remained intact.
5Although as a result of D.C.'s statements and DNA evidence, Bellamy was identified as a suspect during the course of police investigation shortly after the attack, for unknown reasons the case was closed as a cold case and it was not until August 2010 that the case was assigned to a detective in the cold case unit.”

ECF No. 8-1 at 112-15.

Bellamy was sentenced to three concurrent life sentences and an additional 20 years' incarceration for the false imprisonment. ECF No. 8-15 at 31.

B. Direct Appeal and Post-Conviction

Bellamy, through counsel, filed a direct appeal of his conviction to the Court of Special Appeals. He raised five claims:

1. The trial court erred by excluding evidence of D.C.'s mental health diagnosis and medication.
2. The trial court erred by excluding testimony that a sexually transmitted disease could be responsible for D.C.'s injuries.
3. The trial court erred by admitting evidence without a proper chain of custody.
4. Mr. Bellamy's right to a speedy trial was violated.
5. The trial court should have merged Mr. Bellamy's conviction for false imprisonment into his conviction for first-degree rape for sentencing purposes.

ECF No. 8-1 at 65.

The court vacated Bellamy's sentence for false imprisonment, finding it should have been merged in the other offenses, but otherwise affirmed his convictions. ECF No. 8-1 at 112, 136. On February 11, 2016, the court's mandate issued. Id. at 137.

On February 29, 2016, the Court of Appeals of Maryland docketed Bellamy's petition for a writ of certiorari, which raised the same four issues rejected by the intermediate court. ECF No. 8-1 at 134-48. On April 25, 2016, the petition was “dismissed on the grounds of lateness.” Id. at 149. Pursuant to Md. Rule 8-302(a) a petition for writ of certiorari must be filed no later than 15 days after the Court of Special Appeals issued its mandate.

Bellamy's post-conviction petition, as supplemented, raised numerous claims. ECF 8-1 at 150-54 (sixteen claims), 220-21 (three additional claims), 244-46 (ten consolidated claims); see also post-conviction opinion restating 22 claims raised by Bellamy pro se and through counsel, ECF No. 8-1 at 256-59. Several of the claims were withdrawn at his post-conviction hearing. ECF No. 8-1 at 259. In light of the overlapping issues raised in the petitions as supplemented, the Court considered the claims raised topically finding Bellamy proceeded on the following claims:

(1) Petitioner's competency to stand trial, (2) the victim's credibility, (3) the condom, (4) alleged hearsay statements made by the victim, (5) the Internal Investigations Division files of the lead detective, (6) the “missing witness” instruction, (7) the motion for modification of sentence, (8) the application for review of sentence, and (9) the cumulative effect of the alleged errors.

ECF No. 8-1 at 259.

After a hearing held on April 17, 2018, the post-conviction court, by written opinion and order issued on November 19, 2019, granted Bellamy's request to file a belated motion for modification of sentence, but denied relief in all other respects. ECF No. 8-1 at 248-49.

Bellamy, pro se, filed a timely application for leave to appeal the denial of post-conviction relief asserting the same claims he presented to the state post-conviction court. ECF No. 8-1 at 25, 293-310. On December 19, 2019, through counsel, he filed an application for leave to appeal restating some of the same claims. Id. at 25-26, 311-45. The Court of Special Appeals summarily denied the application on July 12, 2019. ECF No. 8-1 at 346-47.

D. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

In his petition filed with this Court, Bellamy raises 17 grounds for relief. ECF No. 1-1. He claims, in Grounds One, Two and Three that the trial court committed evidentiary errors that violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process. ECF No. 1-1 at 7-11. Specifically, Bellamy contends that the trial court erred in: (1) excluding evidence of D.C.'s mental health diagnosis and the medications she was taking; (2) excluding testimony that a sexually transmitted disease could have caused D.C.'s injuries; and (3) admitting DNA evidence without a proper chain of custody. ECF No. 1-1 at 7-12.

In Ground Four, Bellamy claims the trial court violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a speedy trial because the trial did not occur until two years after he was indicted. ECF No. 1-1 at 12-13.

In Grounds 5-17, Bellamy alleges that the state post-conviction court erred in denying his petition. Grounds Five and Six concern Bellamy's assertion that the post-conviction court erred in finding no error occurred when the trial court and “pretrial court failed to make a finding on Bellamy's competency to stand trial. ECF No. 1-1 at 13-15.

Grounds 7 through 16 concern Bellamy's claims that the post-conviction court erred in determining Bellamy did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically:

Ground Seven: Failure to request an evaluation of Bellamy's competency to stand trial. ECF No.
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT