Myison Iaeene Ellis v. Chadwick Dotson

Summary

This Memorandum Opinion addresses Myison Iacene Ellis’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging Virginia convictions for first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit robbery, and use or display of a firearm in the commission of a felony. The court grants the respondent’s motion to dismiss Claims 1 through 5 with prejudice, denies the motion without prejudice as to Claim 6, and orders a supplemental response addressing that claim. The opinion applies the exhaustion and procedural-default principles governing federal habeas review and the deferential AEDPA and Strickland standards.

Holdings

1. The state court's rejection of Ellis's ineffective-assistance claims was reasonable under the doubly deferential AEDPA and Strickland standards; Claims 1 through 5 were dismissed with prejudice.
2. The state court reasonably rejected the claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to provide twenty-one-day notice of intended DNA evidence.
3. The state court reasonably rejected Ellis's claims challenging counsel's decisions about impeachment, interview transcripts, criminal history, a rebuttal witness, and alleged inconsistencies in testimony.
4. The state court reasonably rejected Ellis's ineffective-assistance claim concerning counsel's failure to object to the trial court's treatment of Farmer as a nonadverse witness.
5. The motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice as to Claim 6 because Respondent had not addressed that claim; Respondent was ordered to file a supplemental response.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the state court reasonably rejected Ellis's ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's failure to provide notice of intended DNA evidence.
2. Whether the state court reasonably rejected Ellis's ineffective-assistance claim concerning impeachment of Lucretia Robinson with criminal history and prior interview transcripts.
3. Whether the state court reasonably rejected Ellis's ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's failure to investigate and subpoena Mable Lanham.
4. Whether the state court reasonably rejected Ellis's ineffective-assistance claim concerning alleged inconsistencies in Karen Farmer's testimony.
5. Whether the state court reasonably rejected Ellis's ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's failure to object to limitations on cross-examination of Karen Farmer.
6. Whether Respondent had established grounds to dismiss Ellis's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause claim concerning limitations on impeachment of Karen Farmer.

Disposition

other