Howard v. Warden of Buckingham Correctional Center, 850751
| Decision Date | 05 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 850751,850751 |
| Citation | 348 S.E.2d 211,232 Va. 16 |
| Parties | Ronald Leroy HOWARD v. WARDEN Of the BUCKINGHAM CORRECTIONAL CENTER. Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Edward D. Barnes (Englisby, Barnes & Allen, Chesterfield, on brief), for petitioner.
Frank S. Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Mary Sue Terry, Atty. Gen., on brief), for respondent.
Present: All the Justices.
This is an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Ronald Leroy Howard against the Warden of the Buckingham Correctional Center. The dispositive question in the case is whether habeas corpus lies to correct errors of counsel allegedly committed in a prior habeas proceeding.
Howard is being detained pursuant to judgments rendered by the Circuit Court of Arlington County on December 8, 1982, sentencing him to serve a total of 18 years in the penitentiary upon his conviction of two counts of robbery and two counts of using a firearm in the commission of robbery. Following his conviction, Howard filed a petition for appeal in this Court alleging errors in the admission of identification evidence. By order entered June 29, 1983, we refused the petition. Attorney Matthew P. Bangs represented Howard at trial and in seeking an appeal.
On September 6, 1983, Howard filed with this Court an original habeas corpus petition attacking his conviction on grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and abuse of discretion by the trial judge. By order entered May 11, 1984, we awarded Howard a writ returnable to the Circuit Court of Arlington County for determination of the issues of (1) ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to discover, interview, and summon witnesses, and (2) prosecutorial misconduct in withholding and suppressing exculpatory evidence and introducing testimony known to be false.
The circuit court appointed R. Ramsey Maupin, an Arlington attorney, to represent Howard. Maupin filed a request for a subpoena duces tecum, seeking to discover the contents of the prosecution file of the Commonwealth's Attorney and the investigation file of the police department. The court denied discovery of the prosecution file because Maupin had failed to follow proper procedures to obtain a subpoena duces tecum. 1 The court also denied discovery of the investigation file, holding that police department files are privileged and hence not "open ... to every defendant who would claim that he has a right to examine [such files]." Then, on February 20, 1985, after a hearing, the court dismissed Howard's petition for habeas corpus.
Maupin filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals of Virginia and also filed an appendix and opening brief. 2 The Attorney General filed a motion in the Court of Appeals listing several deficiencies in the appendix and asking that Howard be compelled "to prepare a proper appendix in conformity with the requirements of Rule 5A:25."
In response to this motion, the Court of Appeals on August 5, 1985, ordered Howard to "re-file his appendix and opening brief" by September 16, 1985. When Howard failed to comply with this order, the court dismissed his appeal.
Howard filed his present petition for habeas corpus in this Court on September 23, 1985. In the petition, Howard alleged a variety of grounds for relief. The Attorney General moved to dismiss the petition in its entirety. By order entered February 25, 1986, we dismissed most of the allegations as barred by Code § 8.01-654(B)(2), Hawks v. Cox, 211 Va. 91, 175 S.E.2d 271 (1970), or Slayton v. Parrigan, 215 Va. 27, 205 S.E.2d 680 (1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1108, 95 S.Ct. 780, 42 L.Ed.2d 804 (1975).
The remaining portions of Howard's petition alleged that habeas counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the habeas court's denial of discovery and for failing to perfect Howard's habeas appeal. We ordered that these allegations be docketed for argument along with a threshold question posed by this Court, viz., whether habeas corpus lies to correct the errors of counsel allegedly committed in a prior habeas proceeding. As indicated earlier, we think this is the dispositive question in the case.
Howard argues that habeas corpus does lie to correct errors committed by counsel in a prior habeas proceeding. Habeas corpus is designed to challenge the validity of detention, Howard notes, and had he prevailed in his prior habeas proceeding, he would have been released from detention. Yet, Howard complains, the ineffectiveness of his habeas counsel denied him a fair habeas hearing and "stands as the bar to his liberty."
Howard concedes that "not ... all petitioners seeking habeas corpus relief ... are entitled to counsel" as a matter of constitutional right. He argues, however, that once the trial court decided he was entitled to have counsel assist him in seeking habeas relief, he was entitled to effective counsel. When his assigned lawyer performed inadequately, Howard asserts, he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel. The only way he can redress this deprivation, Howard concludes, is by the use of habeas corpus, the "safety net to [correct] mistakes in the legal system where a prisoner is incarcerated due to error."
We disagree with Howard's premise that habeas corpus is available to correct errors committed by counsel in a prior habeas proceeding. As the Attorney General...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dir. of the Dep't of Corr. v. Kozich
...important given that "the right to effective assistance of counsel is dependent on the right to counsel itself." Howard v. Warden, 232 Va. 16, 19, 348 S.E.2d 211, 213 (1986) (alteration omitted) (quoting Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 397 n. 7, 105 S.Ct. 830, 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985) ); see al......
-
Sigmon v. Dir. of the Dep't of Corr.
...purpose, the law permits a prisoner to mount a collateral attack upon his conviction or sentence.” Howard v. Warden of Buckingham Corr. Ctr., 232 Va. 16, 19, 348 S.E.2d 211, 213 (1986); see also Buchanan v. Buchanan, 170 Va. 458, 464, 197 S.E. 426, 429 (1938) (“The primary object of habeas ......
-
Walker v. Forbes
...“[t]he right to effective assistance of counsel is dependent on the right to counsel itself,” Howard v. Warden of Buckingham Correctional Center , 232 Va. 16, 19, 348 S.E.2d 211, 213, (1986) (quoting Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 396 n.7, 105 S.Ct. 830, 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985) ), “before a p......
-
Powell v. Warden of Sussex I State Prison, Record No. 042716 (VA 11/8/2005)
...trial. The Court rejects claim VI(G) because there is no constitutional right to counsel in seeking habeas relief. Howard v. Warden, 232 Va. 16, 19, 348 S.E.2d 211, 213 (1986). In a portion of claim VII(C)(1), petitioner alleges he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial bec......