Summary
The Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed Sherman Brown’s untimely petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the reliability of trial hair and fiber evidence and presenting new DNA evidence. The Court held that applying Virginia’s habeas corpus limitation period did not violate the Suspension Clause because Brown’s nonjurisdictional claims fell outside the historically protected scope of the writ. The Court also rejected a freestanding actual-innocence claim and declined to revisit its prior decision rejecting Brown’s petition for a writ of actual innocence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Code § 8.01-654(A)(2)'s limitation period for habeas petitions attacking criminal convictions or sentences violates the Suspension Clause of Article I, § 9 of the Virginia Constitution when applied to newly discovered nonjurisdictional evidence claims.
- Whether habeas corpus permits Brown to raise a freestanding actual-innocence claim or provides an actual-innocence exception to the statutory limitation period.
- Whether Brown's petition was timely under Code § 8.01-654(A)(2).
Holdings
- Brown's habeas petition was untimely. Because his conviction predated the statute's effective date, he had until July 1, 1999, to file a timely petition, but he did not file until October 7, 2016.
- The application of Code § 8.01-654(A)(2) to Brown's nonjurisdictional claims based on newly discovered evidence did not violate the Suspension Clause of Article I, § 9 of the Virginia Constitution.
- Habeas corpus is not a vehicle for raising a freestanding actual-innocence claim, and the applicable statute of limitations contains no actual-innocence exception.
Key quotations
“The writ of habeas corpus is not a writ of error. It deals, not with mere errors or irregularities, but only with such radical defects as render a proceeding absolutely void.” (at 4)
“Accordingly, Brown’s inability to now question and present new evidence bearing on his factual guilt or innocence does not violate the Suspension Clause.” (at 5)
“Habeas corpus is not a vehicle for raising claims of actual innocence, nor does the statute of limitations include any exception for claims of innocence.” (at 5)
Factual background
In 1970, a jury convicted Sherman Brown of murdering a four-year-old child and sentenced him to death. Brown was later resentenced to life imprisonment after his death sentence was vacated pursuant to Furman v. Georgia. Decades later, Brown asserted that advances in forensic science undermined the hair and fiber evidence introduced at trial and that DNA testing exculpated him. The court noted that some of the forensic-science studies Brown relied on predated the 1999 deadline for filing a timely habeas petition.
Procedural history
Brown was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in 1970; the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed. After Furman v. Georgia vacated the death sentence, Brown was resentenced to life imprisonment in 1973. Brown filed a statutory writ of actual innocence petition in 2016, which the Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed. He filed the present habeas petition on October 7, 2016, conceding that it was untimely but arguing that applying the limitation period violated the Virginia Constitution's Suspension Clause. The Supreme Court of Virginia granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition.