Hicks v. Dir., Dep't of Corr.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the dismissal of Arsean Lamone Hicks’s habeas corpus petition as untimely. The court held that Code § 8.01-229(D) can toll the habeas limitations period in Code § 8.01-654(A)(2) when the claim is based on alleged Brady nondisclosure, but declined to apply the ends-of-justice exception because the allegedly withheld evidence was not material. The court concluded that the evidence would not undermine confidence in Hicks’s convictions for the Open House Diner crimes.

Holdings

1. Code § 8.01-229(D) applies to and may toll the limitations period established by Code § 8.01-654(A)(2). In a habeas claim based on an alleged Brady violation, the Commonwealth's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence qualifies as obstruction that prevents filing of the claim for purposes of § 8.01-229(D), regardless of whether the nondisclosure was intentional or inadvertent.
2. The ends-of-justice exception to Rule 5:25 did not apply because Hicks failed to establish that denying review of his unpreserved tolling argument would result in a grave injustice.
3. The alleged nondisclosure was not material and therefore did not establish prejudice under Brady.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Code § 8.01-229(D) tolls the habeas corpus limitations period in Code § 8.01-654(A)(2) when the alleged obstruction consists of the Commonwealth's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence supporting a Brady claim.
2. Whether the ends-of-justice exception to Supreme Court Rule 5:25 should permit consideration of Hicks's unpreserved tolling argument.
3. Whether the alleged undisclosed evidence was material under Brady and whether denying consideration of the claim would result in a grave injustice.

Disposition

affirmed