Juniper v. Davis, 13–7.

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
• Citation: 737 F.3d 288
• Docket Number: No. 13–7.,13–7.
• Parties: Anthony Bernard JUNIPER, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Keith W. DAVIS, Warden, Sussex I State Prison, Respondent–Appellee.
• Decision Date: 10 December 2013

737 F.3d 288

Anthony Bernard JUNIPER, Petitioner–Appellant,
v.
Keith W. DAVIS, Warden, Sussex I State Prison, Respondent–Appellee.

No. 13–7.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Dec. 10, 2013.

Robert Edward Lee, Jr., Dawn Michele Davison, Charlottesville, VA, for Petitioner–Appellant. Jacqueline M. Reiner, Bowen Champlin Foreman & Rockecharlie, PLLC, Robert H. Anderson, III, Katherine Baldwin Burnett, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven Andrew Witmer, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for Respondent–Appellee.

ORDER
GREGORY, Circuit Judge:

Petitioner Anthony Bernard Juniper was convicted in the Circuit Court for the

[737 F.3d 289]

City of Norfolk on four counts of capital murder and other related felony charges. Following a jury trial, Juniper was sentenced to death for each of the capital murder convictions. The jury found the death sentence justified by two aggravating factors, vileness and future dangerousness. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed Juniper's convictions and sentences, and the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari. See Juniper v. Commonwealth, 271 Va. 362, 626 S.E.2d 383,cert. denied,549 U.S. 960, 127 S.Ct. 397, 166 L.Ed.2d 282 (2006).

Juniper filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Virginia, which was ultimately dismissed. See Juniper v. Warden of Sussex I State Prison, 281 Va. 277, 707 S.E.2d 290,cert. denied,––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 822, 181 L.Ed.2d 532 (2011). Juniper then filed his federal habeas petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The district court denied Juniper's petition, see Juniper v. Pearson, No. 3:11–cv–00746, 2013 WL 1333513 (E.D.Va.2013), but issued a certificate of appealability on two issues: (1) whether the district court correctly determined that Juniper's allegations in Claim I of his federal habeas petition failed to satisfy the materiality standard under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); and (2) whether Juniper was entitled to the appointment of new counsel under Martinez v. Ryan, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012).

We requested expedited briefing on the second issue, asking:

Should this case be vacated and remanded under the reasoning of this court's order in Gray v. Pearson, 526 Fed.Appx. 331 (4th Cir.2013)[?]

Having considered the parties' responses, we find the reasoning of Gray equally applicable to the case at hand, and vacate in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this order.

The Court in Gray made it clear why a federal habeas petitioner is entitled to independent counsel to pursue the ineffectiveness of state habeas counsel in order to raise procedurally barred “ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel” claims in the happenstance that the petitioner is represented by the same counsel in both federal and state habeas proceedings. Therefore, we only provide a short recitation of the facts and reasoning of Gray, as we adopt Gray's reasoning in toto.

While federal habeas proceedings were pending in Gray, the Supreme Court issued Martinez v. Ryan, deciding that “[w]here, under state law, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel...