UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7932
KEITH LEMONT SANDERS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CA-03-598)
Argued: March 14, 2006 Decided: July 27, 2006
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Erwin Chemerinsky, Professor, DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF
LAW, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Thomas Judge,
Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Carson Campbell,
Lindsay McGuire, Chris Richardson, Beth Richardson-Royer, Catinca
Tabacaru, Law Students, DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Durham,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Judith W. Jagdmann, Attorney
General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Keith Lemont Sanders appeals the district court’s denial of
his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. This court granted a certificate of appealability with
respect to specified claims alleging ineffective assistance of
counsel and failure to disclose exculpatory evidence. Upon
consideration of those claims, we affirm the denial of habeas
relief.
I.
On April 9, 2000, Lieutenant W.K. Extine of the York County,
Virginia, Sheriff’s Department, observed Sanders traveling
northbound on Route 17 in York County. Extine knew Sanders had had
his license revoked from a recent criminal history check at the
Department of Motor Vehicles. Extine also knew that Sanders had
charges pending in Newport News and York County, which was the
reason for the criminal history check at the DMV. Extine followed
the defendant to a parking lot and signaled him to stop. Extine
asked Sanders for his license and Sanders replied, “Epstein [sic],
you know I don’t have a license.” The officer searched Sanders and
the vehicle and discovered ten pills marked M-357 and one piece of
crack cocaine. Extine then arrested Sanders. No objection is made
to that search.
2
On July 6, 2000, after accepting an Alford guilty plea from
the defendant, the Circuit Court of York County convicted Sanders
of one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine,
second or subsequent offense, and one count of possession of a
controlled substance, hydrocodone and acetaminophen. On October
17, 2000, Sanders was sentenced to five years in prison for
possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and four years and
six months for possession of a controlled substance.
On October 29, 2001, Sanders filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in the Supreme Court of Virginia, challenging his sentence
for possession of a controlled substance, a misdemeanor offense.
On November 27, 2001, the circuit court entered an order vacating
the original sentencing order and re-sentenced Sanders to five
years in prison for possession with intent to distribute cocaine
and 12 months for possession of a controlled substance. (J.A. 106)
After exhausting his direct appeals in the state courts,
Sanders filed, pro se, a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the
circuit court on December 4, 2002. The circuit court denied and
dismissed the petition and the Supreme Court of Virginia refused
his petition for appeal from the denial of habeas relief.
Then, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Sanders filed this
petition for writ of habeas corpus. The magistrate judge
recommended that the petition be denied and dismissed. On
September 13, 2004, the district court denied and dismissed the
3
petition for habeas corpus and declined to issue a certificate of
appealability because Sanders failed to demonstrate a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Sanders noted his
appeal and, after consideration of informal briefs, this court
appointed counsel for Sanders and granted a certificate of
appealability on two issues: (1) whether Sanders was denied
effective assistance of counsel due to his attorney’s alleged
failure to investigate and advance a motion to suppress, and (2)
whether Sanders was denied due process based on the Commonwealth’s
failure to divulge information relating to access of his DMV
records.
II.
Sanders first asserts that his trial counsel’s representation
constituted ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to
conduct a pre-trial investigation and failed to move to suppress
illegally obtained evidence.1 To establish that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel, Sanders must satisfy both prongs
of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). “First, the
1
Sanders also argues that his appellate counsel failed to meet
the standard for effective assistance of counsel because she failed
to conduct a reasonable investigation that would have uncovered a
violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Because
Sanders failed to raise such a claim in the district court or the
state courts, the claim is defaulted for purposes of federal
habeas. Bassette v. Thompson, 915 F.2d 932, 936 (4th Cir. 1990);
see also Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 914-15 (4th Cir. 1997);
Bennett v. Angelone, 92 F.3d 1336, 1344 (4th Cir. 1996).
4
defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. . .
. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance
prejudiced the defense.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687.
First, Sanders claims that his trial attorney conducted no
investigation prior to the preliminary hearing in the York County
District Court. A reasonably competent attorney in a similar
situation, Sanders contends, would have adequately investigated
Sanders’ only possible line of defense: whether sufficient
probable cause existed to justify the traffic stop. Further,
Sanders argues, the attorney's failure to conduct any investigation
altered the result of Sanders’ plea hearing because but for such
errors, Sanders would neither have made an involuntary plea, nor
stipulated to facts that he now alleges were fabricated by the
prosecution.
Second, Sanders argues that because his attorney neglected to
do any pretrial investigation, he failed to move to suppress
illegally obtained evidence found in Sanders’ pocket. Sanders thus
contends that the result of the plea hearing was prejudiced by the
failure to make a motion to suppress the evidence obtained in
violation of the Fourth Amendment because had this evidence been
inadmissible, the entire basis for Sanders’ conviction would have
collapsed.
The state habeas court found the claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel to be without merit. We hold that the
5
decision of the state habeas court was not unreasonable. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1).
The prosecutor, by stipulation, summarized the Commonwealth’s
evidence, to which Sanders had “no additions or deletions.” (J.A.
88) That evidence establishes that there is nothing suspicious
about the timing of the DMV check by Extine. Extine made the DMV
check almost an hour after the arrest as part of the normal process
of requesting a warrant. Moreover, the stipulation establishes
that Extine’s pre-arrest knowledge of the defendant was not based
on the DMV check, rather on his previous dealings with Sanders and
charges pending against Sanders in Newport News and York County.
Further, the record establishes that Sanders and his car were
searched incident to a valid arrest. A reasonable conclusion based
on this evidence was that there was no basis upon which to file a
motion to suppress. Sanders, therefore, failed to demonstrate
either incompetence or prejudice, as required by Strickland.
III.
Next, Sanders argues that his Fourteenth Amendment right to
due process was violated when the government failed to disclose
evidence showing that Extine lacked probable cause for stopping
Sanders. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). He claims that
Extine had no prior knowledge of his revoked driver’s license and
only learned of the fact almost an hour after Sanders’ arrest when
6
he checked the DMV record. Thus, according to Sanders, the stop
was illegal. Sanders contends that Extine, as a part of the
prosecution, failed to divulge the existence of the DMV record
showing the time he checked Sanders’ driving record. Sanders
asserts that the failure of the prosecution and the police to
disclose this evidence is material. Without use of the evidence
obtained by the illegal stop, he contends, the conviction could not
have been obtained.
The state habeas court found this claim to be procedurally
defaulted because it could have been raised at trial or on direct
appeal. Slayton v. Parrigan, 205 S.E.2d 680, 682 (Va. 1974).
Sanders asserted to the federal magistrate judge that the cause of
the default was due to ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging
that Atkinson failed to conduct an adequate investigation of the
facts. The magistrate judge found that because the information was
available to Sanders and he could have presented this claim on
direct appeal, his attorney’s failure to discover the information
at an earlier stage cannot constitute cause for default. Nor can
the delay in its discovery be said to have caused any actual
prejudice. The magistrate judge’s recommendation that the petition
with respect to this claim be denied was accepted by the district
court.
This court has recognized that “the procedural default rule
set forth in Slayton constitutes an adequate and independent state
7
law ground for decision.” Wright v. Angelone, 151 F.3d 151, 159
(4th Cir. 1998) (quoting Mu’Min v. Pruett, 125 F.3d 192, 196 (4th
Cir. 1997). Therefore, absent cause or prejudice or a miscarriage
of justice, we may not review Sanders’ constitutional claim because
the state habeas court declined to consider its merits on the basis
of an adequate and independent state procedural rule. Mu’Min, 125
F.3d at 196; see also Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 262 (1989).
Sanders attempts to establish ineffective assistance of
counsel as cause and prejudice to excuse his default. Yet,
“ineffective assistance adequate to establish cause for the
procedural default of some other constitutional claim is itself an
independent constitutional claim.” Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S.
446, 451 (2000). Thus, a claim of ineffective assistance generally
must “‘be presented to the state courts as an independent claim
before it may be used to establish cause for a procedural
default.’” Edwards, 529 U.S. at 452 (quoting Murray v. Carrier,
477 U.S. 478, 489 (1986)); see also Swisher v. True, 325 F.3d 225,
231 (4th Cir. 2003). Sanders does not assert that he can
demonstrate cause and prejudice for his procedural default of the
ineffective assistance claim. Accordingly, he cannot use
ineffective assistance of counsel to demonstrate cause for the
failure to raise the due process violation. Therefore, the
8
district court did not err in concluding that Sanders’ claim was
procedurally defaulted.2
The judgment of the district court is accordingly
AFFIRMED.
2
Even if we were to review Sanders’ Brady claims, we would
find them to be without merit. The potentially exculpatory
evidence, he claims, of the DMV record of the time at which Extine
checked his driving record, which he contends shows the check was
not made until almost an hour after the arrest is not the source of
probable cause for the stop. As discussed above, Extine had
probable cause to stop Sanders based on a previous DMV check and
previous dealings with the defendant. Thus, Sanders’ failure to
meet the Brady test is fatal to his claim on this issue. And, in
any event, there is no merit to the Brady claim based on any
failure of the attorney to turn over the DMV information which was
available to the defendant in a place where a reasonable defendant
would have looked. United States v. Wilson, 901 F.2d 378, 381 (4th
Cir. 1990).
9