Larry Abrams v. Leslie Cooley Dismukes, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Adult Correction

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina denied and dismissed Larry Abrams’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court held that his Fourth Amendment and ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims were unexhausted and procedurally defaulted, and that he failed to establish cause or actual prejudice. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability.

Holdings

1. The Fourth Amendment claims were not properly exhausted in state court. The March 30, 2019 claim had not followed either recognized state review track to completion, and the February 11, 2020 incident was not connected to any North Carolina conviction that could be challenged in the federal habeas proceeding.
2. The March 30, 2019 Fourth Amendment claim was procedurally defaulted, and Abrams failed to establish cause and actual prejudice to excuse the default.
3. Abrams's ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim was unexhausted and procedurally defaulted because its alleged errors were apparent from the cold record and could have been raised on direct appeal under North Carolina law.
4. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Abrams did not satisfy the applicable standard for showing that reasonable jurists could debate the procedural rulings or the denial of a constitutional claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Abrams's Fourth Amendment claims concerning the March 30, 2019 and February 11, 2020 incidents were exhausted and cognizable in federal habeas proceedings.
2. Whether the Fourth Amendment claim concerning the March 30, 2019 incident was procedurally defaulted and, if so, whether Abrams established cause and actual prejudice to excuse the default.
3. Whether Abrams's ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim was exhausted or procedurally defaulted under North Carolina law.
4. Whether Abrams established cause and actual prejudice to excuse the procedural default of his ineffective-assistance claim.
5. Whether Abrams was entitled to a certificate of appealability.

Disposition

dismissed