Haywood v. Clarke
| Decision Date | 22 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:20cv1091 (LO/IDD) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | Kevin John Haywood, Petitioner, v. Harold Clarke, et al., Respondents. |
Kevin John Haywood, Petitioner,
v.
Harold Clarke, et al., Respondents.
No. 1:20cv1091 (LO/IDD)
United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division
February 22, 2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Liam O'Grady United States District Judge
Kevin John Haywood, a local Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his December 15, 2016 convictions in the Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria, Virginia for robbery and unlawful wounding. Case No. CF16000181.[1] On May 24, 2021, Respondent filed a Rule 5 Answer and a Motion to Dismiss, with supporting briefs and exhibits. Petitioner was advised of his right to file responsive materials pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) and Local Rule 7(K) to the motion to dismiss. Haywood has filed a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss [Dkt. No. 27], and motions for appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing. [Dkt. Nos. 23, 24]. Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the respondent's Motion to Dismiss must be granted and the petition will be dismissed with prejudice.
I. Procedural History
Haywood is detained pursuant to the Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria judgment entered on December 15, 2016. Commonwealth v. Haywood, Case No. CF16000181 (R. at 154-56).
On September 30, 2016, Haywood was convicted at his bench trial of one count of robbery and one count of unlawful wounding. The court sentenced Haywood on December 15, 2016 to fifteen years in prison for robbery and five years for unlawful wounding, for a total sentence of twenty years, with ten years suspended, (id.).
Haywood appealed his convictions arguing that: the trial court erred by granting the prosecution's motion to try Haywood and his codefendant, Rahlondo Lane, in a joint trial; by admitting exhibits 22a, 22b, and 22c, which showed the locations of cell phone towers in the vicinity of the crime scene that may have transmitted calls to and from Haywood's cell phone; and by finding the evidence sufficient to sustain his convictions. Haywood v. Commonwealth, Record No. 2117-16-4 (Va. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2017) (per curiam) (hereinafter "CAV R. at "). By order entered September 21, 2017, a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia denied his petition for appeal (Id. at 73-80), which was affirmed by a three-judge panel on December 4, 2017. (Id. at 85). The Court of Appeals of Virginia summarized the facts as follows:
[T]he ... attack on the victim was accomplished by two persons - one who hit the victim in the head and took his wallet, and the other who drove the getaway car. The description of the car given by the victim and a neighbor who was awakened by the altercation and saw the car in the street, matched [Haywood]'s car, a 2002 gold four-door Ford Crown Victoria. The victim's bank card was used within an hour of the robbery to make a purchase for $10.78 at a convenience store about fifteen minutes from the crime scene. [Haywood]'s former girlfriend, Virginia Douglas identified him in the store's surveillance video. Douglas found the victim's Metro SmarTrip card at the apartment she shared with [Haywood], and when she asked [Haywood] about it, he told her she could use the card. The victim's Macy's credit card was also located at the apartment in a cell phone case belonging to [Haywood]
.... The evidence established [Haywood]'s identity as the perpetrator. He was identified as being at the convenience store where the victim's bank card was used, and [his] car matched the descriptions given of the car observed at the scene when the robbery occurred. The items taken from the victim were the same items used at the convenience store and found in the apartment where [Haywood] lived at the time of the crime. "The unexplained possession of recently stolen goods permits the fact finder to infer that the possessor is the thief." Archer v. Commonwealth, 26 Va.App. 1, 13, 492 S.E.2d 826, 832 (1997): see Burton v. Commonwealth, 58 Va.App. 274, 284, 708 S.E.2d 444, 449 (2011) (inference
derived from recent possession of stolen goods requires that "the goods in question match the general description of the recently stolen, items").
(CAV R. at 78).
The Supreme Court of Virginia denied Haywood's subsequent petition for appeal in a summary order on August 1, 2018. Haywood v. Commonwealth, Record No. 171770 ("VSCT R. at___").
Haywood timely filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Virginia, in which he raised the following claims for relief:
A. Trial court error:
1) The trial court erred by failing to sever Haywood's trial from his co-defendant.
2) The trial court erred by admitting Detective Ryan Clinch's testimony that Lane acknowledged he was the person depicted in a surveillance video using the victim's debit card shortly after the victim was attacked and robbed.
3) The trial court erred by finding Haywood guilty as a principal in the second degree and sentencing him to fifteen years in prison with eight years suspended.
4) The evidence was insufficient evidence to find Haywood guilty.
5) The evidence was insufficient evidence to find Haywood guilty of robbery.
B. Due Process violations
1) The prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct when it implicated him through Detective Clinch's testimony describing Lane's statement to the police.
2) Haywood's right to due process was violated because DNA testing was not conducted on the victim's Metro fare card and Macy's credit card.
3) Haywood's right to due process was violated because he was not provided a physical copy of fingerprint analysis or other scientific analysis of the Metro fare card and the Macy's card to establish who touched the cards.
4) Haywood's right to due process was violated because scientific analysis was not performed on his vehicle, which failed to eliminate the possibility that Haywood's car was not the getaway car connected to the offenses.
5) Haywood's right to due process was violated because the victim's pants were not collected.
C. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.
1) Trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to hire an expert in cell phone tower signal transmission and usage despite successfully moving for funds to do so.
2) Trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to hire an investigator to find a potential suspect or witness to whom Lane alluded during his interview with the police.
3) Trial counsel was ineffective because he failed "to state at trial" that Lane had said another individual, who at the time of Lane's arrest was in Atlanta, was with Lane when he came into possession of the victim's property.
4) Trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to move to suppress evidence of Lane's statement to Detective Clinch.
5) Trial counsel was ineffective because he did not object to the admission of the victim's Macy's credit card.
Haywood v. Clarke, Record No. 190875; (VSCT R. at 67-71). The court dismissed Haywood's petition by order entered May 21, 2020. (Id. at 843-50).
On September 10, 2020, Haywood sent his federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus to this Court. The petition raises the following grounds for relief:
I. Trial court errors in violation of the 14th Amendment.
A. Trial court erred in granting motion for joinder.
B. Trial court erred in admitting Exhibits 22a, 22b, and 22c into evidence.
C. Insufficient evidence.
II. Ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the 14th Amendment.
A. Pretrial: Counsel failed to investigate another potential suspect.
B. Trial
1. Counsel failed to object:
a. During opening statements b. Kelly Gilfillen hearsay testimony
2. Counsel failed to adequately cross-examine Detective Ryan Clinch.
II. Exhaustion and Default
A state prisoner must exhaust his claims in the appropriate state court before filing a federal habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); Granberry v Greer, 481 U.S. 129 (1987). To comply with the exhaustion requirement, a state prisoner "must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State's
established appellate review process." 0'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). Thus, a petitioner convicted in Virginia must have presented the Supreme Court of Virginia with the same factual and legal claims raised in his § 2254 petition. See, e.g., Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995); Kasi v. Aneelone, 300 F.3d 487, 501-02 (4th Cir. 2002).
The requirement that facts be exhausted is an important aspect of exhaustion under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). AEDPA limits federal habeas "review under § 2254(d)(1)... to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits." Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011); see Muhammad v. Clarke, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10129, *24 (E.D. Va. Ja. 26, 2012) (where a petitioner attempts to allege unexhausted facts, the federal court must defer to the state court's finding) (citing Kasi, 300 F.3d at 501-02; Pinholster, 563 U.S. at 182-83), appeal dismissed. 474 Fed.Appx. 979 (4th Cir. 2012). Pinholster emphasized "that the record under review is limited to the record in existence at that same time - i.e., the record before the state court." Id. (emphasis added).[2] The Fourth Circuit found that the reasonableness of a state court decision is evaluated "'in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.'" Porter v. Zook, 898 F.3d 408, 443 (4th Cir. 2018) (quoting Jones v. Clarke, 783 F.3d 987, 991 (4th Cir. 2015)).
Even though the merits of a petitioner's federal habeas claims have not been...
To continue reading
Request your trial