Jamal Kemo Saunders, a/k/a Forever Al-Mani Hamilton v. Director Harold Clarke

Summary

In this supplemental memorandum opinion, the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia considers Jamal Kemo Saunders's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his Virginia conviction for possession of a firearm. The court concludes that the petition is not moot despite Saunders's release, finds that his Brady claim fails because the Commonwealth did not suppress exculpatory evidence, and dismisses the petition.

Holdings

1. The petition was not moot because federal habeas jurisdiction attached when Saunders was in custody, and collateral consequences of the conviction were presumed to remain.
2. Saunders failed to establish a Brady violation because the evidence did not show that the Commonwealth ever possessed the alleged metal fragments.
3. Saunders established actual innocence sufficient to pass through the Schlup gateway and permit review of his otherwise barred ineffective-assistance claim.
4. Saunders was not entitled to equitable tolling of the one-year federal habeas limitations period.
5. Trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to subpoena the underlying radiographic images or obtain expert testimony concerning the projectile.
6. A certificate of appealability was denied because Saunders failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Saunders's federal habeas petition remained justiciable after he completed the sentence for the challenged firearm-possession conviction.
2. Whether the Commonwealth violated Brady v. Maryland by suppressing metal fragments allegedly removed from Roberts's body.
3. Whether Saunders established actual innocence sufficient to pass through the Schlup gateway and overcome procedural and limitations barriers to review of his ineffective-assistance claim.
4. Whether Saunders was entitled to equitable tolling of the federal habeas limitations period.
5. Whether Saunders's ineffective-assistance claim was procedurally defaulted under Virginia law.
6. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to obtain Roberts's complete medical records and underlying radiographic images or consult a ballistics expert.
7. Whether a certificate of appealability should issue.

Disposition

dismissed