Bellamy v. Graham
Decision Date | 16 February 2022 |
Docket Number | Civil Action GJH-19-2230 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Parties | REGINALD W. BELLAMY, Petitioner, v. RICHARD J. GRAHAM, JR., Warden, MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents. |
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.
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:
Bellamy was sentenced to three concurrent life sentences and an additional 20 years' incarceration for the false imprisonment. ECF No. 8-15 at 31.
Bellamy, through counsel, filed a direct appeal of his conviction to the Court of Special Appeals. He raised five claims:
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.
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:
To continue reading
Request your trial