France v. Warden

JEFFREY FRANCE, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent.

Case No.: GJH-20-631

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Southern Division

July 6, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a limited response to the above-entitled Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Respondent asserts that the Petition should be dismissed because it is time-barred and does not state a federal claim. ECF No. 11. Petitioner Jeffrey France filed a Reply. ECF No. 15. No hearing is necessary. See Rule 8(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2018); see also Fisher v. Lee, 215 F.3d 438, 455 (4th Cir. 2000) (holding that a petitioner is not entitled to a hearing under 28 U.S.C. §2254(e)(2)). For the reasons discussed below, the Petition shall be dismissed and a certificate of appealability shall not issue. See infra §§ III, IV.

Also before the Court are Petitioner's Motion for Emergency Transfer, ECF No. 10, and Petitioner's Motion to Strike Respondent's Limited Response, ECF No. 13.¹ The Court brieflyaddresses those motions here.

Petitioner's Motion for Emergency Transfer seeks a transfer to a different prison based on an asserted danger to his safety. ECF No. 10 at 1-2. However, Petitioner's Motion for Emergency Transfer is not the proper avenue to address his concerns. Should Petitioner continue to believe his fears are not being adequately addressed by correctional staff, the appropriate cause of action is a separate civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, following exhaustion of administrative remedies. Thus, the Court denies, without prejudice, Petitioner's Motion for Emergency Transfer.

Petitioner's Motion to Strike Respondent's Limited Answer is based on his assertion that Respondent's Limited Answer violates this Court's Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 13. Petitioner's assertion is without merit. This Court directed Respondent to provide "all relevant opinions, materials, and transcripts" with its Answer. ECF No. 7. The materials filed are relevant to the arguments made by Respondent.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 17, 2013, Petitioner France pleaded guilty to second-degree assault. ECF No. 11-1 at 4. The Circuit Court for Harford County (the "circuit court") sentenced France to ten years of incarceration, suspending all but eighteen months, followed by three years of supervised probation. Id. at 13. The circuit court, as a condition of probation, also ordered France to refrain from contacting the victim of the assault, except regarding visitation and custody matters.² Id. at 15.

While France did not file an application for leave to appeal the conviction, on June 12, 2013, France filed a "Petition for Judicial Review," which the circuit court construed as a petition for post-conviction relief. Id. at 17-26, 38.³

In 2014, during France's incarceration, in violation of his conditions of probation, he sent a threatening letter to the victim of the assault. ECF No. 1-4 at 27-29. As a result, on December 2, 2014, while France remained incarcerated and before the beginning of his probationary period, the circuit court revoked his probation. ECF No. 1 at 2; ECF No. 1-4 at 13; ECF No. 11-1 at 27. The circuit court imposed eight years and six months of the previously suspended portion of his sentence, with all but four years suspended, followed by a period of three years supervised probation. ECF No. 11-1 at 27. The court again ordered that France have no contact with the victim, "not even with respect to the minor child." ECF No. 1-1 at 3.

France filed an application for leave to appeal the revocation of his probation with the Maryland Court of Special Appeals on December 11, 2014, arguing that "the violation of probation . . . was not ripe for adjudication as the Defendant had not yet been released from the original sentence[.]" ECF No. 11-1 at 63-64. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals denied France's application on July 1, 2015, ECF No. 1-1 at 3 (citing France v. State, No. 2646, Sept. Term 2014 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. July 1, 2015)); ECF No. 1-4 at 12. France then, on July 24, 2015, filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Maryland Court of Appeals, ECF No. 1-4 at 12, which was denied in September 2015. Id. at 11; ECF No. 11-1 at 39.

In addition to France's direct appeal of the circuit court's revocation of his probation,France filed a Petition for Reduction and/or Modification of Sentence pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-345 on December 8, 2014, ECF No. 11-1 at 28-29, which, at France's request, the circuit court held sub curia, id.; ECF No. 1-4 at 13 ("hold sub curia"). France's December 8, 2014 Petition did not enumerate any specific basis for relief. ECF No. 11-1 at 28-29. France filed a second Petition for Modification of Sentence on May 12, 2015, requesting work release and referencing the circuit court's previous acceptance of his Petition for Reduction and/or Modification of Sentence. ECF No. 11-1 at 30-31.⁴ The circuit court summarily denied France's Petition on May 20, 2015. ECF No. 11-1 at 30.

On August 14, 2015, while his original petition for post-conviction relief was still pending, France filed an Addition to Post Conviction Relief, ECF No. 11-1 at 39,⁵ alleging, as he had in his direct appeal of the 2014 revocation of probation, that his probation was illegally revoked because he had not yet been released from the underlying sentence. Id. at 44. However, France did not address this issue at the post-conviction hearing, which took place on April 22,2016. Id.; ECF No. 1-4 at 10. The circuit court denied post-conviction relief on May 12, 2016. Id. at 38-55.

France next filed a writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court on July 27, 2016. ECF No. 11-1 at 58-61. In that writ of habeas corpus, France alleged that he entered into a binding plea agreement on January 17, 2013, and that he was never advised during the proceedings that his probation could be revoked during his incarceration. Id. at 58. France argued that Maryland Rule 4-243 requires that the terms of a plea agreement be made plain on the record in the presence of the defendant. Id. at 59. He further claimed that, since he did not commit a new offense, he did not violate an implied condition of his probation. Id. at 60-61. In France's view, the circuit court lacked authority to revoke his probation before it began "for bad behavior or misconduct that does not amount to a violation of the criminal law." Id. at 36. The circuit court rejected these arguments and denied France's July 27, 2016 Writ of Habeas Corpus on August 16, 2016. ECF No. 11-1 at 58; ECF No. 1-4 at 9.

From the records before the Court, it appears France then filed another writ of habeas corpus on November 1, 2017, although it is unclear to the Court what arguments that habeas petition contained. ECF No. 1-4 at 8; ECF No. 11-1 at 9. On November 20, 2017, the circuit court denied France's November 1, 2017 Writ of Habeas Corpus as well. ECF No. 1-4 at 7; ECF No. 11-1 at 9.

Also in 2017, France sent additional threatening letters to the assault victim. ECF No. 1-1 at 3. Consequently, on January 25, 2018, after a hearing, the circuit court again revoked France's probation, ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence, and did not suspend any portion of the sentence. Id., ECF No. 1-4 at 5-6.

France filed a Notice of Appeal to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals on February26, 2018. ECF No. 11-1 at 56-57; ECF No. 1-4 at 5. It is unclear from the records provided by the parties what judgment France was appealing. ECF No. 11-1 at 56-57. Nevertheless, France's February 2018 Notice of Appeal reiterates his argument that the 2014 "revocation of probation [was] not authorized for bad behavior or misconduct that does not amount to a violation of criminal law[.]" Id. at 57. On August 27, 2018, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals dismissed the appeal, on its own initiative, pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-602(b)(1). ECF No 1-5 at 14; Md. Rule 2-602(b)(1) ("The Court shall dismiss an appeal if: (1) the appeal is not allowed by these Rules or other law[.]").

On August 6, 2018, France filed a Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. ECF No. 11-1 at 33-36; ECF No. 1-4 at 4, 30-33. This Motion made identical arguments to those found in Petitioner's July 2016 Writ of Habeas Corpus and virtually equivalent to those he made during his direct appeal of the 2014 probation revocation. ECF No. 11-1 at 33-36; ECF No. 1-4 at 30-33. The circuit court denied France's Motion as "previously addressed" in a marginal order dated October 3, 2018. ECF No. 11-1 at 33; ECF No. 1-4 at 30. France appealed the summary denial of his motion to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals on October 24, 2018. ECF No. 1-1 at 3; ECF No. 1-4 at 4.

The Court of Special Appeals, in an opinion dated September 30, 2019, affirmed the circuit court's decision revoking France's probation. ECF No. 11-1 at 65-68; ECF No. 1-1 at 2-5. In doing so, the appellate court found that France's claim was not a proper one to bring pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-345(a) because the sentence was not inherently illegal. ECF No. 1-1 at 5. Further, the appellate court observed that "[a] court . . . may revoke a defendant's probation before the probationary period begins, see Matthews v. State, 304 Md. 281 (1985); McKinney v. State, 239 Md. App. 297 (2018), cert. denied, 462 Md. 573 (2019), and whether thecourt errs in doing so is a matter subject to appellate review upon this Court's granting of a timely filed application for leave to appeal." Id. The court then concluded that it would not revisit the decision to deny France's application for leave to appeal the decision revoking his probation. Id. Consequently, in December 2019, France filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which the Maryland Court of Appeals denied on February 28, 2020. ECF No. 11-1 at 11; ECF No. 1-1 at 1.

France filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court on March 5, 2020. ECF No. 1-6 at 1 (postmark...