IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
April 25, 2013
ROBIN LYNN SEARS #1469360 PETITIONER
WARDEN WILLIAM MARTIN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Frederick Motz United States District Judge
On April 18, 2013, the Clerk received a habeas corpus petition from petitioner, who is presently serving a three-year sentence, all but 90 days suspended, at the Anne Arundel County Detention Center, after entering an Alford plea*fn1 on March 14, 2013, on the charge of failure to immediately stop at the scene of a motor vehicle accident.*fn2
Under Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982), before a petitioner may seek habeas relief in federal court, she must exhaust each claim presented to the federal court by pursuing remedies available in state court. This exhaustion requirement is satisfied by seeking review of the claim in the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider the claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c). In Maryland, this may be accomplished by proceeding after conviction with certain claims on direct appeal, and thereafter seeking certiorari to the Court of Appeals and with other claims by way of a post-conviction petition, followed by petitioning the Court of Special Appeals for leave to appeal. Petitioner claims counsel told her she could not appeal the plea, and lists additional grievances concerning ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner has not completed post-conviction review alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
Because the habeas corpus claims presented here have not been exhausted in the State courts, the instant action is premature. See Grayv. Netherland, 116 S.Ct. 2074, 2080-83 (1996). Thus, the case will be dismissed without prejudice by separate order. A certificate of appealability will not issue because petitioner has not made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right."*fn3
A separate Order follows.