United States District Court, D. Maryland
DAMION A. WILSON Petitioner
WARDEN RICHARD MILLER and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND Respondents
XINIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
response to the above-entitled Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus, Respondents assert the petition should be dismissed
as untimely. ECF No. 5. Petitioner was granted 28 days to
file a Reply explaining why the petition should not be
considered untimely. ECF No. 6. Petitioner so replied and the
matter is now ripe for this Court's consideration. No.
hearing is necessary to resolve the matters pending.
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, Respondents will be required to provide
additional materials for the Court's consideration.
September 21, 2000, Petitioner Damion Wilson entered an
Alford  plea to one count of second-degree murder
in the Circuit Court for Charles County, Maryland. ECF No. 5
at Ex. 1, p. 18 (docket entry 70000; withdrawing not guilty
plea and plea of not criminally responsible; entering
Alford plea). Wilson was sentenced on December 8,
2000 to 30 years' imprisonment running from February 7,
2000. Id. at p. 19. Wilson did not appeal these
proceedings, and the time for filing such an appeal expired
on January 8, 2001. See Md. Rule 8-204 (application
for leave to appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry
of judgment or order challenged).
April 17, 2003, Wilson moved for reconsideration of his
30-year imprisonment sentence. ECF No. 5 at Ex. 1, p. 20
(docket entry 91000). The motion was denied on June 2, 2003.
Id. (docket entry 93000).
February 26, 2004, Wilson filed a petition for
post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court for Charles
County which was withdrawn without prejudice on October 21,
2004. ECF No. 5 at Ex. 1, pp. 21-22 (docket entries 95000
& 112000). On March 2, 2006, Wilson filed another
petition for post-conviction relief which was withdrawn
without prejudice on December 15, 2006. ECF No. 5 at Ex. 1,
pp. 23 & 24 (docket entries 121000 & 135000).
Wilson's third petition for post-conviction relief was
filed on March 30, 2009. ECF No. 5 at Ex. 1, p. 25 (docket
entry 146000). Post-conviction hearings were held on October
18, 2013 and April 2, 2014. Id. at pp. 35 & 38
(docket entries 248000 & 286000). On July 14, 2014, the
Circuit Court granted limited relief to Wilson, vacating the
restitution order of $8, 795, but otherwise denied relief.
Id. at p. 40 (docket entry 298000).
August 4, 2014, Wilson appealed the denial of post-conviction
relief to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals by
application for leave to appeal. ECF NO. 5 at Ex. 1, p. 40
(docket entry 302000). The application for leave to appeal
was denied on August 21, 2015, with the mandate issuing on
November 2, 2015. Id. at p. 41 (docket entry
311000). Wilson's motion for reconsideration filed on
September 4, 2015, was denied on October 30, 2015.
March 21, 2013, while Wilson's post-conviction petition
was pending with the Circuit Court for Charles County, he
filed a petition for writ of actual innocence. ECF No. 5 at
Ex. 1, p. 29 (docket entry 196000). The petition was
supplemented on August 1, 2012. Id. at p. 30 (docket
entry 206000). It is unclear from the docket entries
submitted to this Court whether the Charles County Circuit
Court ruled on Wilson's petition for writ of actual
then filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on
November 8, 2016. ECF NO. 1. In it, Wilson acknowledges that
he seeks relief well beyond the date that his conviction
became final but requests that this Court reach the merits of
his claim because he asserts actual innocence and submits
newly discovered evidence exists which supports his claim of
actual innocence. ECF NO. 1 at p. 8. Specifically, the newly
discovered evidence is:
1. A torn photograph of the black male identified as being
present in the residence of the victim at the time of the
shooting during an interview of Alura Brown (who was
three-years old) by Officer Daniel Gimler. Wilson states he
obtained the photograph through a Public Information Act
request in 2010. ECF No. 1 at p. 8.
2. Post-conviction testimony by Bernard Cole, Jr. during the
2013 post-conviction hearing indicating that Cole did not
identify Wilson as the person he saw in front of the
victim's home. ECF No. 1 at pp. 8 - 9.
3. Post-conviction testimony of Jacqueline Stancliff where
she testified that:
a. She could not identify the person she saw running on the
sidewalk, which if true, contradicts Wilson's
Alford plea stipulation stating that Stancliff
identified the person running as a teenager. ECF No. 1 at p.
b. She told the responding officer that “she heard the
gunshot come from a place mid and high on her living room
wall” which connected with the wall to the victim's