Ronald Jay Morton v. Joseph Walters

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Ronald Jay Morton's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and dismissed it with prejudice. The court overruled Morton's objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, rejected his claims concerning jurisdiction, counsel, guilty pleas, competency, suppression issues, impartiality, and appellate representation, and granted the respondent's motion to dismiss. The court also denied a certificate of appealability.

Holdings

1. A federal habeas court may not grant relief on factual challenges that were newly asserted in federal objections and were not raised in the state habeas proceeding or the federal petition; in any event, a state factual determination must be more than incorrect or erroneous to be objectively unreasonable.
2. A federal district court may not use a § 2254 proceeding to review a state court's allegedly erroneous interpretation or application of state law.
3. When the Supreme Court of Virginia determines that a claim is procedurally barred under Slayton v. Parrigan because it could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal, federal habeas review of that claim is barred absent cause and actual prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
4. The March 27, 2017, initial appearance was not a critical stage of the criminal proceeding requiring counsel's prior presence because it was not an adversarial or trial-like confrontation.
5. Morton's sworn representations during the plea colloquy that he understood the charges, had discussed them with counsel, and was satisfied with counsel constituted a formidable barrier to later ineffective-assistance claims, and Morton failed to overcome that barrier.
6. A certificate of appealability was unwarranted because the procedural basis for dismissal was not debatable and Morton failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court could consider newly asserted challenges to the state court's factual findings when those arguments were not presented in the state or federal habeas petitions.
2. Whether the federal court could review Morton's contention that the Virginia trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on alleged errors of state law and insufficient evidence of Virginia conduct.
3. Whether procedural default under Slayton v. Parrigan barred review of claims that could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal.
4. Whether Morton's March 27, 2017, initial appearance was a critical stage requiring counsel's presence.
5. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to identify allegedly nolle prossed charges, request a competency hearing, litigate suppression issues, pursue jurisdictional arguments, advise Morton about the offense elements and double jeopardy, or otherwise provide effective assistance.
6. Whether the state court improperly considered certified transcripts in the appellate record.
7. Whether Morton was entitled to habeas relief or a certificate of appealability.

Disposition

dismissed