Transcription
rLERK':OFFIQE u.s.Dlsm couRT.AT IMFNVILLE,vAILEDIN TH E UN IT ED STATE S D ISTRIC T C O U RTFO R TH E W E STERN D ISTR ICT O F V IR G INIAR O A N O K E DIV ISIO NK EITH LA M ON TE H ILL,0CT 19 2217Ju lAc buDta c RKuv,kmzDEPUW CLECA SE N O .7:16CV 00514Petitioner,M EM O R AN D U M O PIN IO NH AROLD W .CLARKE,By:Hon.Jackson L.KiserSenior U nited StatesD istrictJudgeR espondent.K eith Lam onte Hill,a V irginia inm ate proceeding pro K ,timely filed apetition fora gingthevalidityofHill'sconfinementonajudgmentin CampbellCounty CircuitCourt. Respondenttqled amotion to dismiss,and Hillfailed to respond,making them atterripe fordisposition. Afterreview ofthe record,Igrantthem otionto dismissand dismissthepetition.B ackgroundA Campbell County jury convicted Hill of burglary, grand larceny, conspiracy,destruction ofproperty,and possession ofburglary tools. The circuitcourtsentenced him to asixtp one yearprison tel'm .In Hill'srelated Franklin Countyhabeaspetition,Iestablishedthefollowing facts:On the m olming of July 5,2010, Rocky M ount Food Lion employeesarrived atwork to discoverthatabreak-in had occurred overnight. A buzglarhadcutan entry-hole into the back wall,and thethiefhad stolen 5,692 ofcigarettes.The storesurveillancecamerascaptured amale wio fitHill'sdescription insidethe store,holding a bag,and going to various cigaret'te dispensing locations.Em ployees called the localpolice,who began investigating.Onthem orning ofAugust1,2010,theowneroftheLucky 2 M art,locatedin the southern part of Frarlklin Cotm ty, discokered that som eone had cut anentry-hole into the back wall of his store and absconded with 18,000 ofcigarettes. U nfortunately,the surveillance cnm eras and m otion detectors w ere notfunctioning.1 A gain,localpolice began investigating.1Therecord isunclearon whetherthem otion detectorsw eredisabled, orbroken.1
On August 8, 2010, Lt.M andeville of the BotetourtCounty SheriffsDepartm entresponded to a callfrom 604 M inute M arket regarding a break-inattempt. Prelim inary investigation did notrevealany suspects,2 butaround thistim e,BotetourtCounty oficersdiscovered thatsimilarburglaries,with the samemodus operandi3 had occurred in Cam pbell County, Franklin County,and theCityofLynchburg.A n.O n Septem ber 4, 2010, Botetourt County D eputy Bnlce stopped asuspiciousvehicle in the Greenway M arketparking lot,long afterthe store hadclosed. H ours later,Greenw ay M arket em ployees reported a suspicious m an thatclaim ed to be f'rom the store's security provider,butthe individual leftbeforeG reenw ay M arketem ployees phoned police.4On September9,2010,Lt.M andevilleobtained surveillance footage fromthe 604 M inute M arket5 and G reenw ay M arket. ln the Greenw ay M arketsurveillancetape,the suspiciousm an,who claim ed to befrom thestore'ssecurityprovider,placed tape over seclzrity motion sensors. Lt. M andeville stronglysuspected thatthevideosfrom thetwo storesshowed the sam e individual:ablackm alem atching Hill'sdescription.O n Septem ber 10,2010,D eputy Bnzce inform ed Lt.M andeville aboutthesuspicious vehicle in the Greenway M arket parking lot, and thereafter Lt.M andeville obtained the license and DM V inform ation on the two black m alesthat Deputy Bruce had stopped on the morning of September 4, 2010. Lt.M andeville then compared the DM V photos with the surveillance footage;Lt.M andevillebelievedthatone oftheblbck malesfrom theparking 1otstop,Hill,w asthe snm e black m ale w ho appeared in the 604 M inute M arket and G reenwayM arketsurveillance videos.AfteradditionalDM V searches,Lt.M andevillediscovered Hill'sBedfordaddress and his ownership ofa 2003 Chevrolet. Lt.M andeville consulted withthe Com m onw ealth's A ttorney about attaching a GPS device to Hill's vehicle,and the Com monwealth's Attorney advised that a search warrant wasurm ecessary. The controlling precedentatthe tim e,Foltz v.Com m onwealth,698S.E.2d 281 (Va.Ct.App.2010),stated thatthe placementofa GPS uniton avehicledid notconstim teasearch orseizure.Lt.M andevilledirected Botetourt2Thecasesin Franklin County wentcold duringthesum m erof2010.3The burglarappeared to iûcase''hisbreak-ins, cutan entrp holein therearofstoresin the early Employeesfiled areportwith Botetourtpoliceaherthem an leftthestore.5The 604 M inute M arketsurveillance footage was 9om August 1, 2010. The video was obtained byBotetourtofficersafterM inute M arketemployeesheard aboutthe suspiciouseventsatGreenway M arket,and thenremembered a similarly suspiciouseventattheirstore in early August. Thesurveillance videotape showed a wallwheretheattem pted break-in occurredaw eek later.'' Hillv.Com m onw ealth,2012 W L 4773583,2012V a.App.LEXIS318,at*12(Va.Ct.App.2012).2
Deputy Dillow to place a GPS on Hill's vehicle.6 On Septem ber 16, 2010,Deputy Dillow traveled to the city of Bedford,located the Chevroletoutside ofHill'shom e,and attached the GPS lm itonto theundercarriage ofHill'svehicle atapproxim ately 4:30 A.M . The GPS device remained attached to Hill's vehicleuntilSeptember27,2010.On or about Septem ber 21, 2010, Lt.M andeville m et with CampbellCounty Investigator Tracy Em erson to review Botetotu't County surveillancevideos,because Em erson suspected thatH illw ms the culpritfor sim ilar Cnm pbellCotmty break-ins. Investigators initially could notcomlectany getaway vehiclesto Hill; however, Em erson discovered that Hill had rented a silver or grayChevroletHHR from a carrentalcom pany severaltim es in m onths prior,and asim ilarvehicle appeared in som e ofthe sulweillance tapes.On the morning of Septem ber27,2010,a Campbell County Food Lionrepoded a break-in w here an entry-hole had been cut into the back w all of thestore,and cigaretteshad been stolen.1 Em erson called Lt. M andeville,w ho sharedGPS data showing thatHill's vehicle had been in the Food Lion parking 1otforover an hour earlier that m orning. Investigators w orked on obtaining searchwarrantsfor Hill's vehicle and home. Laterthatday,Cam pbellCounty officerscontacted the Bedford Police Departm entto setup surveillance ofHill's vehicleand coordinate an arrest. Bedford offcersthen followed Hilland associate TroyBlake when they left H ill's house. Police fognd stolen cigarettes w hen theystopped the vehicle,including cartons in the back seat of the vehicle poorlyconcealed by bedding,and officers took Hill and Blake into custody. Afterofficers advised them of their M iranda rights, Blake gave a f'ull statem entimplicating both Hilland him selfin theFranklin County burglaries,and Hillalsoadmitted involvem entintheFranklin County crim es.Hillv.Clarke,No.7:15CV00201,2016 W L 7031803,2016 U .S.Dist.LEXIS 165655,at*1-6(W .D.Va.Dec.1,2016).Afterthe CampbellCounty CircuitCourt'ssentencing,Hillnoted an appealto the CourtofAppealsofVirginia, However,beforeflinghisappellate brief,Hillfiled apro î.q petition for.a writofhabeascorpusin the circuitcourt,asserting thatevidence deriked from the GPS shouldhave been excluded. The circuitcourtdenied the habeas petition,and Hilldid notappealthedism issal.6Therecordshowsthatnow arrantw asobtainedfortheGPS attachm ent, and thatno exigentcircum stancesexisted atthetim e.1Beforethebreak-in report, dtgljaw enforcementauthoritiesfrom o.1541-12-3,at2(Va.Cir.Ct.Oct.29,2013).3
Next,Hill pm sued directappeals,but b0th the Coul't of Appeals of Virginia and theSuprem e CourtofV irginia denied his petitions.8 Hill soughtfurther review,butthe UnitedStates Suprem e C ourtdenied his petition fora writofcertiorari. Lastly,H illfiled a state habeaspetition inthe Suprem eCourtofVirginia,raisingfourteen claim s;the couitdenied hispetition.II.CurrentClaim sInhiscurrentpetition,Hillassertsthefollowing fourteen claim s.Substantive ClaimsHill'sdetention isunlawfu1undertheFotu'thAmendmentandArticle1,j 109ofthe Constitution in lightofUnited Statesv.Jones,565 U.S.400 (2012),given the warrantless installation ofa OPS device on his private vehicle by1aw enforcementto gatherinformation. The Botetourtoffcerswere requiredto secm e a warrantorcourtorder,but did neither. The governmentcannotrely on the good faith exception to the warrant requirem ent because theoffcers were notengaged in the lawfulperformance oftheir officialduties.They were acting tmlawfully,outside theirstatutory jtlrisdiction. Also,theCourtofAppeals of Virginia did notrely on the good faith exception in itsopinion;The BotetourtCotmty officers' conductin placing the GPS on the car wasunlawful and violated Hill's due process rights under the Fourth andFourteenih Amendments. The offcers'conductwas outrageouswhen they8W hilehisdirectappealw aspending, thecircuitcour't;bothw eredenied in M archandM ay of2013.TheSupremeCourtofV irglnialaterdism 013.'9Article 1, j 10 ofthe Constitution prohibitsthestatesfrom exercising certain powers,including billsofattainderand expostfactolaw s.4
tnmpered with his vehicle, engaged in crim inal conspiracy,and computercrim es;3. Hill's detention is unlawfulunder the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendm entsbecause the BotetourtCounty sheriffs deputies acted outside their statutoryjurisdiction andthereforeviolatedtheticolorofofficedoctrine.'' Pursuanttothatdoctrine,policeacting outsidetheirjurisdiction,butnotin f'reshpursuit,m ay not utilize the power of their office to gather evidence or ferret outcrim inalactivity nototherwise observable;4. Hill's detention is unlawfulunder the Foul'th and Fourteenth Amendm entsbecause his stop and arrest in the City of Bedford related back toconstitm ionalviolations initiated on September 16, 2010,the date that theBotetourtoffcers attached the GPS device to Hill's car. His arrest was acontinuation of the constim tionalviolations sèt in m otion on September 16,2010. Also,the Comm onwealth did notargue thatthe ofscers had probablecauseto arrestHill;instead,theCotu'tofAppealsinjected thatconclusion initsnon-binding,percuriam order;5. Hill's detention is unlawful under the Sixth Amendm ent because the trialcourtdenied him the rightto callforevidence from a m aterialwitness,JoelBranscom ,the Com m onw ealth's Attorney for BotetourtCotmty. H ill soughttestim ony from Branscom ,a çlw itness'' to the crim inal and tm constitutionalacts of the deputies. H illthus requires an evidentiary hearing to resolve theclaim ',5
Hill's detention is unlawfulunder the Fourteenth Am endment because theAugust22,2011 Campbell County Circuit Courtorder was void,such thatthere w as no need to preserve the issue on appeal. Void orders can bechallenged atany time. Thetrialjudgeknew oftheviolationscommittedbythe Botetouft offcers. Because the örder is void,by vidue of the Jonesopinion,the trialcourt's ruling isincohsistentw ith due process',andHill's detention is unlawful tmder the Fourth and Fourteenth Am endmentsbecause,absentthe GPS data,ajury mightnothave inferred thatHillwasinvolved in the Food Lion break-in. N o one saw H ill break into the FoodLion. The evidence linking H illto the Food Lion crim es w as not strong,1etalone overwhelm ing. The GPS data wasessentialand thetrialcourterred inadm itting it.B lneffectiveAssistanceofcounselC/lf?rluçloA .Appellate counselfailed to challenge the search in the state appellate courtsbased on a reasonable expectation of privacy as stated in K atz v. U nitedStates,389U.S.347 (1967),Statev.Zahn,2012 S.D.19,2012 W L 862707(D.S.D.2012),United Statesv.M aynard,615 F.3d544(D.C.Cir.2010),andother cases. Counsel failed to adequately pursue an argum ent based onoutrageouspolice conduct;B . Appellate counsel failed to argue,as directed by H ill,that H ill's FourteenthAmendm entrights lsunderthe doctrine of fundamentalfaim essm andated bythe due process clause'' had been violated by the Botetourt officers, who10In hispetition, ,4d,5e,6: and 7g.1haveorderedtheclaimsaccordingto theirassociatedletterforclarityanddistinction 9om hissubstantiveclaims.
com mitted multiplecriminalactsagainstHillduringthe courseoftheirillegalinvestigation. Under that doctrine, outrageous governm ent conduct haswarranted dism issalofindictm ents',Appellate counsel,despite expressinstructionsfrom Hill,failed to argue thatHill's Foprth and Fourteenth Am endment rights had been infringed byviolation ofthetsundercolorofofficedoctrine''by BotetourtCounty officials.Counselfailed to press the physicaltrespass and reasonable expectation ofprivacy argum ents,as w ellas outrageous governm entconduct. Counselfailedto press argum ents thatH ill's arrestw as illegal,and fnlitof the illegal arrestshouldhavebeen suppressed;D.Appellate counselfailed to argue in the Courtof Appeals and the Suprem eCourtofVirginia that,absentthe CourtofAppeals'resortto the independentsource doctrine,no probable cause existed for the B edford Police to stop andarrest Hill in Bedford on September 27, 2010. The independent pealsofVirginia;Appellate counselfailed to argue thatthe trialcourterred in quashing Hill'ssubpoena requestforCom m onwealth'sAttorney JoelBranscom ;F. Appellate counselfailed to argue in the CourtofAppeals and the SupremeCourtofVirginiathatthetrialcourt's admission ofevidence obtained by useof the GPS device w as not harm less error, The standazd for hannless en'orw ould havebeen harm lessbeyond a reasonable doubt;andG.Appellatecounselfailed to arguethatthe independentsourcedoctrinewasnotapplicableto thefactsin Hill'scase. The issue wasraised forthefrsttim ein
the CourtofAppeals. Counselshould have argued thatthe historicalrecorddidnotsupportapplication oftheindependentsourcedoctrine.Respondent acknowledges that Hill's petition is tim ely and properly exhausted, butm ovesto dismisshisclaim sasprocedurally barred and/orwithoutm erit.111.DiscussionW. StandardofReviewTo obtain federalhabeas relief,a petitioner must demonstrate thathe isçsin custody inviolation oftheConstitution orlawsortreatiesoftheUnited States.''28U.S.C.j2254(/). Thefederalhabeascourtm ay notgrantawritofhabeascorpusbased on any claim thata state esulted inadecisionthatwascontraryto,orinvolved antmreasonableapplication of,clearly established Federallaw ,as determ ined by the Suprem eCourtofthe U nited States;or(2)Resulted inadecisionthatwasbased onantmreasonabledetenninationofthefactsin lightoftheevidencepresented in the Statecourtproceeding.28U.S.C.j2254(* . CsW here,ashere,thestatecourt'sapplication ofgoverningfederal1aw is/challenged, it must be shown to be not only enoneous, but objectively unreasonable.''Yarborough v. Gentrv, 5405 (2003). Under this standard, ç Ea) state court'sdetennination that a claim lacks m eritprecludes federalhabeas relief so long as çfair-mindedjuristscould disagree'on the correctnessofthe state court'sdecision.'' Harrington lvarado,541U.S.652,664(2004)).To state a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel,a petitioner m ustsatisfy the two-pronged Strickland v. W ashincton test by showing (1) çsthat counsel'sperfonnance wasdeficient,''and (2)Sçthatthe deficientperformance prejudiced the defense.''466 U.S.668,686-687 (1984). (tludicialscrutiny of cotmsel's performance mustbe highlydeferential,''and counselis tsperm itted to setpriorities,determ ine trial strategy,and press those8
1claimswith the greatestchancesofsuccess.'' Id.at689;United Statesv.M ason,774 F.3d 824,828(4th Cir.2014).11 W henreviewing aStricklandclaim ial. See Richter,562 U .S.at 105.For Strickland's firstprong,a petitionerm ust show çsthat cotm selm ade errors so seriousthat counsel was not functioning as the tcounsel' guaranteed the defendant by the SixthA m endm ent.'' Strickland, 466 U .S. at 687-88. çs-l-he question is w hether an attom ey'srepresentation am ounted to incompetence tm der çprevailing professionalnonns,'notwhetheritdeviatedfrom bestpracticesorcommon custom.''W chter,562 U.S.at105(quoting Stricldand,'466U.S.at690).Forthe second prong,a petitionerm ustdemonstrate that,butforcotmsel'salleged error,there is a (treasonable probability that,butforcolm sel's unprofessionalerrors,the resultoftheproceeding would have been different.'' Strickland,466 U.S.at694. ç A reasonable probabilityisaprobability sufficientto underminetheconfidenceoftheoutcom e.'' tllar,ç'gcjotmselisnotobligated to asserta1lnonfrivolousissueson appeal,as gtlhere can hardly be any question aboutthe importance ofhaving the appellate advocateexamine the record with a view to selecting the m ostprom ising issues for review.''' Bellv.Jalvis,236F.3d 149,164 (4th Cir.2000)(en ndeed,requiringcounseltoraiseeveryclaim,oreven amultiplicityofclaims,nmstherisk ofdetracting from contentionsthatm ay betruly m eritorious. thedecidedwhich issuesweremostlikely toaffordreliefon appeal,''a presum ption that a defendant can rebut ttonly when ignored issues are clearly stronger thant1ssThesixth Amendmentguaranteesreasonablecompetence, 'G entry,540 U.S.at8.9
2d 1560,1568(4th tly,CçEaln fonn thebasisofasuccessf'ulineffectiveassistance ofcounselclaim becausetheresultoftheproceedingwould nothave been differenthad the atlorney raised the issue.'' United States v.Kim ler,167 F.3d 889,893(5thCir.1999);seealsoM B. ProceduralDefault çA habeaspetitionerisbarred from seeking federalreview ofa claim thatwaspresentedto a state courtand Sclearly and expressly'denied on the independent,adequate state grolmd ofproceduraldefault.'' Bermetv.Angelone,92 F.3d 1336,1343 (4th Cir.1996)(citing Hanisv.Reed,489U.S.255,263 (1989)).A proceduralruleisadequateSsifitisregularly orconsistentlyapplied bythestatecourq''and independenttçifitdoesnotçdependg)on 66F.3d255,260(4th Cir.1999)(quoting 01-654(B)(2),aVirginiahabeaspetition mustcontainal1allegationsand facts thatthe petitioner know s about atthe tim e offiling. ln H ill's num erically second statehabeaspetition,the Suprem e CourtofVirginial'uled thatClaim s 1 through 5 and Claim 7 weredefaultedunderVa.Code58.01-654(B)(2).TheFourth Circuithasrepeatedly heldthatj8.01654(B)(2)isan adequatqand independentstatelaw proceduralground constitm ingdefault. SeeM ackallv.Ancelone,13)F.3d 442,445-46 (4th Cir.1997)(Va.Code â 8.01-654(B)(2)isanadequateandindependentbar.).ttlf a claim is defaulted,then petitioner m ust fail on that claim unless he can show thatcauseandprejudiceora fundnmentalmiscaniage ofjustice mightexcusehisdefault.'' Bellv.
Tnze,413F.Supp.2d 657,676(W .D.Va.2006)(citingFisherv.Almelone,163 F.3d835,844(4th Cir.1998)). The Gûcause''prong requires a petitioner to demonstrate that there wereClobjective factors,''externalto his defense,which impeded him from raising his claim atanearlierstage. M urray v.Carrier,477 U.S.478,488 (1986). The Glprejudice''prong requiresapetitionerto show thatthe alleged constitutionalviolation worked to his actualand substantialdisadvantage,infecting his entire trial with en'or of a constitutionalm agnitude. 1d.at 495.çsgl-lhe çcause and prejudice'testis f
On the morning of September 27, 2010, a Campbell County Food Lion repoded a break-in where an entry-hole had been cut into the back wall of the 1 E called Lt store, and cigarettes had been stolen. merson . Mandeville,who shared GPS data showing that Hill's vehicle had been in the Food Lion
