Pruett v. Thompson
Decision Date | 19 August 1991 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 3:90CV00667. |
Citation | 771 F. Supp. 1428 |
Parties | David Mark PRUETT, Petitioner, v. Charles THOMPSON, Warden, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Curtis S. Hansen, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., for respondent.
This matter is before the Court on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and respondent's motion to dismiss a petition or for summary judgment.The parties have not sought a hearing, and the matter is ripe for disposition.For the reasons stated below, the respondent's motion will be granted and the petition dismissed.
This memorandum will use the following abbreviations:
Brief of Appellant = Pruett's direct appeal brief State Hab.Pet. = State Habeas Petition Am.State Hab.Pet. = Amended State Habeas Petition State Hab.Order = Habeas trial court order of 7/14/88 Pet. for Appeal = Petition for Appeal of trial court denial of habeas writ Sup.Ct. Order = Virginia Supreme Court order of November 16, 1989 refusing petition for appeal Trial Tr. page = Trial Transcript page Hab. Vol. page = Transcript volume and page number, for trial court hearing on habeas petition Vol. I refers to transcript of October 18, 1988 proceedings Vol. II to October 19 proceedings
Pruett was indicted in July 1985 for the rape, robbery and capital murder of Wilma L. Harvey.A jury convicted Pruett of all three charges and fixed his punishment for rape at life imprisonment, and for robbery at 75 years in prison.Pursuant to Virginia Code § 19.2-264.3, the same jury then heard evidence in aggravation and mitigation of the murder charge, and returned a sentence of death.The trial court imposed the sentences fixed by the jury.
The most obvious evidence of Pruett's guilt and the existence of aggravating factors came from his own confession, which the Virginia Supreme Court ably condensed.SeePruett v. Commonwealth,232 Va. 266, 351 S.E.2d 1, 13(1986), cert. denied,482 U.S. 931, 107 S.Ct. 3220, 96 L.Ed.2d 706(1987);see also infra discussion of Claim J. Pruett's confession was consistent with physical evidence at the scene, and testimony placing him at the victim's home the night of the murder.
Wilma Harvey was found with her hands tied so firmly behind her back that ligature marks remained on her arms and wrists.Trial Tr. Vat 1077-78.A long sock was knotted tightly across her mouth and also knotted behind her head.It alone would have caused her death, because it pressed her tongue back in her mouth, blocking her airway.Id. at 1076.
Harvey had seven stab wounds to her neck, 12 to her chest, and one to her abdomen.Several slash wounds were grouped on her neck and her left hand.There were also cuts ranging from superficial to perforating, i.e., they passed through her entire body or limb.The stab wounds grouped around the neck penetrated her windpipe, major veins and arteries, and the floor of her mouth.Id. at 1069-75.Many of the individual stab wounds would have been fatal by themselves.Id. at 1075.
Wilma Harvey's body was found this way on her blood-soaked bed.Blood was found spattered in other places in her bedroom and adjacent bathroom.Trial Tr. IVat 926-30.There was no evidence of a forced entry.Id. at 930.Pruett's fingerprint was found on the inside of Harvey's glasses, and his palmprint was found on the headboard of Harvey's bed.Id. at 1000-01.
Shortly after his confession, Pruett consented to a search of his home.He also led police to assorted storm drains in the area, where police recovered defendant's T-shirt, underwear and pants, as well as silver coins he said he had taken from Harvey's home.Seeid. at 971-76.
Defendant's pants were found to have a semen stain on them from a "Type AB secretor," or a person with Type AB blood who tends to "express" blood type in other body fluids, such as semen.Seeid. at 1029, 1035.Pruett is a Type AB secretor.Id. at 1035.
Several items of Pruett's clothing were stained with blood consistent with Wilma Harvey's.Id. at 1044-53.Approximately 2.5% of the general population has the same blood type as Wilma Harvey had.Id. at 1053.
The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed petitioner's convictions in all respects; it also denied a petition for rehearing, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari.Pruett v. Commonwealth,232 Va. 266, 351 S.E.2d 1(1986), cert. denied,482 U.S. 931, 107 S.Ct. 3220, 96 L.Ed.2d 706(1987).The United States Supreme Court later denied a petition for rehearing.
Pruett next filed a habeas corpus petition in the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, where he had been convicted.By order of June 14, 1988, the circuit court dismissed all petitioner's substantive allegations and some claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and set a plenary hearing on the remaining ineffective assistance claims.The circuit court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law on March 6, 1989, and dismissed the petition in full by final order of March 27, 1989.
Pruett filed a petition for appeal raising most of the same allegations as the initial petition.The Virginia Supreme Court refused the petition, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari.___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 2194, 109 L.Ed.2d 522(1990).
The facts will be discussed in more detail as the arguments warrant.First, however, the Court will summarize the claims in this petition, and the concepts of exhaustion and procedural default, which preclude this Court's review of all or part of many of the claims.
Pruett advances 12 arguments about the unlawfulness of his death sentence and/or conviction.1They are as follows:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Hamilton v. Clarke
...requirement is satisfied by finding that the "essential legal theories and factual allegations advanced in federal court. . . [are] the same as those advanced at least once to the highest state court."
Pruett v. Thompson, 771 F. Supp. 1428, 1436 (E.D. Va. 1991), aff'd, 996 F.2d 1560 (4th Cir. 1993) (citing Picard v. Connor, 404 U. S. 270, 275-76 (1971)). Therefore, petitioner must present both the same argument and factual support about whether the VDOC may not incarcerate... -
Ortiz v. Dotson
...or collateral review (habeas proceedings). Although Ortiz requests the same relief, the “essential legal theories” in support of that relief are not “the same as those advanced at least once” to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Pruett, 771 F.Supp. at 1436. only theory Ortiz advanced to the Supreme Court of Virginia was one of statutory interpretation. He abandons that theory here and instead asserts that the 2020 Amendment violates a multitude of his federal constitutional rights. This... -
Williams v. Clarke
...404 U.S. 270, 275-76 (1971). This "generally requires that the essential legal theories and factual allegations advanced in federal court be the same as those advanced at least once to the highest state court."
Pruett v. Thompson, 771 F. Supp. 1428, 1436 (E.D. Va. 1991), aff'd, 996 F.2d 1560 (4th Cir. 1993). In other words, Williams must have"present[ed] the same factual and legal claims raised in the instant petition to the Supreme Court of Virginia either by way of... -
Moseley v. French
...and decided in state court, a petitioner may only conduct discovery to the extent he can show "the state court fact finding procedures were inadequate. See Roach v. Martin, 757 F.2d 1463, 1470 & n. 6 (4th Cir.1985)."
Pruett v. Thompson, 771 F.Supp. 1428, 1458 (E.D.Va.1991), aff'd, 996 F.2d 1560 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 984, 114 S.Ct. 487, 126 L.Ed.2d 437 Petitioner's motion fails to demonstrate good cause. First, he makes no showing (1) how he was prevented from...
-
Table I - Case Histories
...(1986), cert. denied, Pruett v. Virginia, 482 U.S. 931 (1987), reh'g denied, 483 U.S. 1041 (1987), cert. denied sub nom. Pruett v. Thompson, 495 U.S. 940 (1990), habeas corpus dismissed,
771 F. Supp. 1428(E.D. Va. 1991), aff'd, 996 F.2d 1560 (4th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 984 (1993), stay denied, reh'g denied, 510 U.S. 1032 (1993). 100. Quesinberry v. Commonwealth, 241 Va. 364, 402 S.E.2d 218...