United States District Court, D. Maryland
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge.
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.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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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. ECF No. 4-1; ECF No. 1, p. 3.
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.
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 ...