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.

Henry v. Foxwell

United States District Court, D. Maryland

March 28, 2018

TROY MARCHAND HENRY, SR., #447363, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN RICKY FOXWELL and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          RICHARD D. BENNETT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Troy Marchand Henry, Sr., currently confined at Eastern Correctional Institution in Westover, Maryland, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The Petition challenges his 2016 conviction in the Circuit Court for Worcester County, Maryland for felonious possession of heroin and the use of a minor in a drug distribution offense. Id.; ECF No. 4-1, p. 7. Respondents filed a Limited Answer in which they sought dismissal of the Petition on the basis of non-exhaustion and/or procedural default. ECF No. 4. Subsequently, Henry opposed Respondents' arguments in a pleading entitled "Motion Opposing Default Claims, " which the Court docketed as a Motion for Other Relief. ECF No. 6. The Court finds no need for an evidentiary hearing. See Rule 8(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts and Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016); see also Fisher v. Lee, 215 F.3d 438, 455 (4th Cir. 2000) (petitioner not entitled to a hearing under 28 U.S.C. §2254(e)(2)). For the reasons that follow, the Petition is denied and dismissed, and a Certificate of Appealability shall not issue.

         BACKGROUND

         On February 25, 2016, Henry pleaded guilty to felonious possession of heroin and the use of a minor in a drug distribution offense in the Circuit Court for Worcester County. ECF No. 4-1, p. 7. On May 6, 2016, he was sentenced to a total of 15 years in prison. ECF No. 1, p. 1; ECF No. 4-1, p. 8. Henry did not seek leave to appeal from his convictions. ECF No. 1, p. 2.

         On October 31, 2016, Henry filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, which he supplemented, through counsel, on February 3, 2017. ECF No. 1, p. 2; ECF No. 4-1, pp. 11-12. Henry aruged that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance "in failing to give accurate advice about the possible sentence." See ECF No. 1, p. 3. Specifically, Henry asserted that trial counsel assured him that he would be sentenced to no more than two years if he pleaded guilty, and that he would not have pleaded guilty if he knew that his sentence would be more than two years. See ECF No. 4-2, p. 3. The post-conviction court denied Henry's petition on February 28, 2017, concluding that Henry "was fully and accurately advised of the sentence which he could receive as a consequence of his guilty plea." ECF No. 4-2. Henry filed an untimely application for leave to appeal this denial to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, and it was "returned as undeliverable 18 days after the deadline." ECF No. 1, pp. 3-4.

         CLAIMS IN THIS COURT

          By his Petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this Court, Henry claims that he is being detained in state custody illegally and presents four grounds, all of which relate to the advice he received regarding his potential sentence:

         1. Did the trial court, prosecutor, and trial counsel violate the plea agreement where Henry was not properly advised about sentence enhancement?

         2. Did the trial court, prosecutor, and trial counsel violate Henry's right to an accurate sentence where he was not properly advised about sentence suspension and parole eligibility?

         3. Did the trial court and prosecutor mislead Henry regarding the sentence where he was not provided notice of the mandatory sentence and enhancement?

         4. Did the trial court and prosecutor err by stating that Henry had a limited possibility for parole and suspension of his sentence?

         DISCUSSION

         I. Exhaustion

         As a threshold matter, a petitioner seeking habeas relief in federal court must exhaust the remedies available in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) (2012); Rose v. Lundy,455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982). 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(c). For a person convicted of a criminal offense in Maryland, this may be accomplished either on direct appeal or in post-conviction proceedings. To exhaust a claim on direct appeal in non-capital cases, a defendant must assert it in an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland and then to the Court of Appeals of Maryland by way of a petition for a writ of certiorari. See Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. ยงยง 12-201, 12-301 (West 2011). To exhaust a claim through post-conviction proceedings, it must be raised in a petition filed in the Circuit Court and in an application for leave to ...


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.