Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Eady v. State

United States District Court, D. Maryland

October 4, 2017

RASHAD EADY, Petitioner
v.
THE STATE OF MARYLAND, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND Respondents

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge.

         On August 20, 2015, Rashad Eady, filed the instant 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition attacking his conviction entered in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. ECF No. 1.[1]Respondents filed an answer arguing that the petition must be dismissed as Petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies. ECF No. 4. Petitioner was directed to provide evidence that his claims had been properly exhausted (ECF No. 5) and was advised that failure to respond could result in the dismissal of the petition without further notice. Id. Petitioner was also advised of the one year statute of limitations for federal habeas petitions and that dismissal of this petition could result in any future petitions being filed outside the applicable statute of limitations. Id. Petitioner did not reply.

         The court finds no need for an evidentiary hearing. See Rule 8(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For reasons that follow, the petition will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of exhaustion and a Certificate of Appealability will not issue.

         On April 26, 2013, Petitioner was found guilty, along with Stephen Eaton, of kidnapping, armed robbery, armed carjacking, first degree assault, theft, and the illegal use of a firearm by a jury sitting in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. ECF No. 4-1, p. 3. He was sentenced on September 4, 2013, to a total term of confinement of 95 years. Id., pp. 3-10. Petitioner, along with his codefendant, noted a timely appeal (id., p. 12) raising the following claims:

1. Did the trial court err in denying Appellants' motions for severance of the charges?
2. Did the trial court err in admitting lay opinion evidence that the wearing of gloves prevents an individual from leaving fingerprints?
3. Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that the lead detective had “met with” Appellants, and in denying a resulting motion for mistrial?
4. Did the trial court err at sentencing in considering charges which did not result in conviction?
5. Was the evidence legally insufficient to sustain the convictions with respect to Mr. Faidley [one of the victims]?

ECF No. 4-2, p. 7.

         Petitioner's appeal was denied on February 4, 2015. ECF No. 4-4; ECF No. 4-1, p. 13. Petitioner filed a self- represented petition for writ of certiorari raising solely the issue of trial court error in regard to the denial of the motion for severance of the charges. ECF No. 4-5. The Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's request for further review on May 27, 2015. Id., p. 9.

         Petitioner's judgment became final for direct appeal purposes on August 25, 2015, when the time for seeking review in the Supreme Court expired. See Sup. Ct. Rule 13.1 (requiring petition for writ of certiorari to be filed within 90 days of judgment from which appeal is sought). Petitioner has not sought post-conviction relief.[2] ECF No. 4-1; ECF No. 1, p. 3.

         Here, Petitioner claims that his constitutional rights were violated because the State filed a criminal information in his case rather than an indictment and no grand jury proceedings were held. ECF No. 1-3. Petitioner also alleges that his appellate counsel erred in failing to raise this claim on direct appeal. ECF No. 1, p. 6.

         When filing a federal habeas corpus application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a petitioner must show that all of his claims have been presented to the state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c); see also Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491 (1973). This exhaustion requirement is satisfied by seeking review of the claim in the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider it. For a person convicted of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.