Love v. Edmonds

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia
DecidedMay 1, 2024
Docket3:23-cv-00635
StatusUnknown

This text of Love v. Edmonds (Love v. Edmonds) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Love v. Edmonds, (E.D. Va. 2024).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division SHAUN LOVE, Petitioner, V. Civil No. 3:23cv635 (DJN) WARDEN LARRY EDMUNDS, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Shaun Love (“Petitioner”), a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (““§ 2254 Petition,” ECF No. 1), challenging his convictions in the Circuit Court for the County of Prince George (“Circuit Court”).! Respondent has moved to dismiss, inter alia, on the ground that the one-year statute of limitations governing federal habeas petitions bars the § 2254 Petition. As explained below, the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) will be GRANTED, and the § 2254 Petition (ECF No. 1) will be DENIED as untimely.” I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On November 14, 1996, after Petitioner had pled guilty, the Circuit Court entered final judgment on Petitioner’s convictions of murder, use of a firearm in the commission of murder, breaking and entering, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. (ECF No. 11-1, at 1-5.)

Petitioner employed the form for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition. However, because he is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court, his habeas petition is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Inre Wright, 826 F.3d 774, 779 (4th Cir. 2016) (“[R]egardless of how they are styled, federal habeas petitions of prisoners who are ‘in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court’ should be treated as ‘applications under section 2254.”). 2 The Court corrects the capitalization, spelling and punctuation and omits emphasis in the quotations from the parties’ submissions. The Court employs the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF docketing system.

PetiatpipoenOaenlrA e udg.4u 1,s9 t9 t7hS,eu prCeomuoerVf ti rgrienfuiPsaee tdi tioner's petifotrai popne( aElCN.Fo1 .1 -a4t, 2.) Petidtiindoofi ntlea epr e tifotrawi roonihf t a bceoarswp iutthsh V ei rgcionuirat s. OnS epte2m62b,0e 2Pr3e ,t imtaiiohlni§ees2 dr2 5P4e tittthoii Coson u3 r(tE.CNFo1 ., a1t0 P.e)t irtaiisotenhfoseel r l ocwlianigm s: ClaiOmn e:" GatCelwaaiy(m E.CN"Fo 2 .a, 7t . P)e tiitasic otnuieanrln lo"ycd eunet tmoe nitnacla paacttih tteia omttfei h aoeln l cergiemd(e Isd.)" ClaTiwmo :" IneffAescstiisovtfCea o nucnes( eIadl1t .0 ". ) (aD)efencsoeun swealis n effefocrtfa iivleti onr ge quaem setn tal compehteeanrc(iyInd g..) (bP)etitgiuoipnlletywer aa'ns sok tn owanidvn ogl ubnetcaarcuyos,une s el faitloie ndv esPteitgiattieo neran'dst hcroemaanptdcee onteeerdnc ceyd Petiitniptolone eagrdu iin(lgIta dy1t .3 -18.) IIA.NALYSIS A. StatouLfti em itations Sec1ti0oo1thfn e A ntiteanrrdEo ffreicsDtmei avPteeh n Aalc(tyt" AEDaPmAe"n)d ed 28U. S§.2 C2.4t 4eo s taabo lnies-phye eraroi flo idm ifotrat thfiielo ionnfa pg e tifotrawi roni t ohfa bceoarsbp yup sea r iscnou ns tpoudryst uanthote j udgomafes nttca otueSr pte.c ifically, 28U .S§.2 C2.4 4n(ordwe) a ds: 1. A I-ypeearr oiflo idm isthaataliplopt nloan y a pplifocraa _ twiorofint habceoarsbp yup sea r isnco uns tpoudryst uotan hjteu dgomfaeS ntta te courtT.h lei mipteartsiihooradnul fr nlo mt hlea toef-s t (A) thdea toenw hitchhje u dgmbeenctamfi en ablyt he concloufds iirroeencv toi rthe ewe xpioraftt htieio fomnre seeksiurnceghv iew; (B) thdea otnew hithcehi mpedtiofim leinannt ag p plication creabtySe tdaa tceti invo ino loaftt hiCeoo nn stoirtution 3 Thciosn sttihdteau ttthePea estt istwieothanarehtsrep lahcifeesdd e hraablpe eatsi tion itnh per imsaoinls iynsgt( eEmCN.Fo 1 .a, 1t 0 T.h)Ce o udreteth mes§2 25P4e tifitliaeosdn oft hdaattS eeeH.o ustvoL.na c4k,8 U7. 2S6.26 7,(61 988). lawosfth eU nitSetdai tsre esm ovietfdh a,ep pliwcaasn t prevefrnotmfie ldib nysg u cSht aatcet ion; (C) thdea toenw hitchhce o nstitruitgaihsots neawrlat sed initrieaclolgybn yit zhSeeud p reCmoeui rtfth ,re i ghhats beenne wrleyc ognbiyzt ehSdeu preCmoeuan rdtm ade retroacatpipvleitlcocya a bsolenecs o llateroarl review; (D) thdea otnew hithcehfa ctpuraeld oiftc hacetl eao ircm l aims presecnotuheladdvb ee edni scotvherroetudheg exh e rcise ofd udei ligence. 2. Thtei dmuer wihnigac p hr opfielrealdpy p lifocraS ttipaootnse t -conviction oro thceorl lraetvewirieatrwlhe spteotc hptee rtjiundegnmoterc n ltai ism pendsihnanglo blte c ounttoewdaran dy p eroifol di mituantdtiehorin s subsection. 28U .S.§2C 2.4 4(d). B. CommenceamneRdnu tn noifnt ghS et atoufLt iem itations Und2e8Ur . S.§2C 2.4 4(d)P(elt)i(tjAiu)od,ng emre'nst fi nbaelNc oaovmnee m 3b,e r 199w7h,et nht ei mteofi laep etifotrai w ornoi fct e rteixopriaSrreeiHed ill. v B.r axt2o7n7, F.37d0 17,0( 44 thC i2r0.0 (2")[ To]nhee-l yiemairtp aetrbiieoogndri unnnsi wnhged ni rect revoifet whs et actoen viiccsto imopnlo erwt heetdnh t ei mfoers eekdiinrrgee cvthi aesw expi.r.e".(d .c i2t8iU n.gS .§2C 2.4 4(d)S{.lC )tR(..1A .3).1)T )hl;ei mitpaetreiixoopndi red onyee laart oenNr o,v em3b1,e9 r9 B8e.c ause fPaeittliofiet ldhie io §sn2 e2r5P 4e tibtyti hoant datiietbs, arr ebdy t hset aotflu itmei tuantliieoitsnrs sse ndteirmebedyl b yea l ated commencoeftm heleni tm itpaetroiiroano n de quietxacbelpett oti hloein m itpaetriioond . Petitcioonntteehrnha dits§s2 25P4e tiqtualiiofinae sts i mebleyc,ah uimssee n itnacla pacity demonsttrha(at1the) eis as c tuianlnloyoc fte hncetr iomfew hsi hcesh t acnodnsv iacnt(de2,d) hei s enttoei qtuliettdoa lbllien g. C. ActuaIln nocence ThSeu prCeomuhera rtse cogancitizuneandlo acaseb nacsfoeir os v erctohmei ng expiortfa htseit oaontlf ui tmei tSaetMeic oQnusiv.gP. ge irnk5 i96Un .sS,3.3 83 ,68 ( 2103) (e xplatih"naaitcn itgnu naolc ipefrn ocevs,ee rdav,sae g sa tewayw htiahcp rheo tuigmthai yo ner pawshse tthhieemr p ediiasmp ernotc ebda.ur.or ..ra . le. x piorftah tseit oaontf u te limints"a)Wt;ii lvosG.or ne e1n5e5, 3 F6.94,30d4 C(i41rth98. 9)( "Cloafai cmtuisan ln ocence, whetphreersa esfrn eteesdt oannoedrmsi e nrgae sgla yt etweoax ycsau p sreo ceddeufaruallt ,

shonuolbtdeg racnatseud)al H.le yrt.eh"C,eo urretv iPeewtsi tairognuemunred'netstrh s e morlee nsitanednartfod rg ateawcatiyun anlo ccleanbicemecs a,su usbes ctroi_bPientgi tione actiunanlo ccleanwicomeup ledr tmhiCeto urtt coo nstihmdeee rroi fht iosst hetriwmies­e barrehda bpeeatsi tion. Ag atecwlaaryie mq uapi erteistt poir oen"senerenr wte leiavbild-eew nhceeti bhtee r exculspcaiteoenryvt iidfitruecsn tcweo,er ytehwyia tncecsoosucr nr tispt,hi ycsaeilvc iad-le nce thwaatns o ptr esaetrtni taeSldc. h"vl D.ue pl 5o1U,3. 2S8.9,3 42( 9195")B.e csauucshe evidieosnb cvei uonuasvlayii tnlh vaeab mslatej oorcfia tscyel sa,oi fam cst iunnaolc aernec e raresluyc ceIsdsI fuafpl e.t"i mteieothtnebse u rr odpfer no dnuectruwil,nry ge lieavbildee nce

ohf iosrh eirnn ocetnhCceoe uth,re tcn o ns"i'dtaehlerelvs i deonlacdnen d,e 'wi ,n criminatin ande xculwpiatthrooeryug,ttar wo dh ethiwetor u nledc esbseaar dimliunytd te'errd u olfe s admistsihbaitl wiotayutrt li da anlgd,od "ve'et rne rwmhienttehhpseee r t ihtaimsoe tnthe er stanfodraarg da tecwlaaoyifi mnn oceHnocuevsB..ee l5l4U,7. S58.1,5 3(82 60()0q uoting Schl5u1Up3., aS t.3 27-T2h8Ce)o .um rutsd te te"rmwihnee't iihmsteo rrl ei ktehlnanyo t th at nor easojnuarwboolrulhe da fovuen pde tigtuiioblneteyyraor neda sodnoau"bbS'lth e.a vr.p e Bel5l9F,3. 33d7 327,7 C(i24r01t.0h )( quoStcihnl5gu1U p3., aS t.3 27-"2T8hC)eo. urtn eed noptr octetoeh sdie sc sotnoedtfp h ien quunilryte hpsees t ifitrissoutnp ephroi orsrht escr l aim witehv idoetfn hrceee q uqiusailtHieitv lyJ.l.o "h n2s0o1WLn0 ,5 476a7*t55 (5 E,.V DaD..e c. 302,0 1(0c)i WteienvksgB.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re: Terrence Wright v.
826 F.3d 774 (Fourth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Love v. Edmonds, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/love-v-edmonds-vaed-2024.