FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AUG 2 6 2009
Clerk, U.S. District and
Bankruptcy Courts
)
EUGENE J. CUNNINGHAM, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No.
)
09 1623
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, )
)
Respondent. )
-------------------------)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Mr. Eugene Cunningham's petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. The petition will be denied.
Petitioner alleges that the sentence imposed by the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia upon his conviction for armed robbery and two counts of first degree murder under the
District's felony murder statute. Pet. at 6; see Cunningham v. United States, No. 05-1200 (PLF),
2005 WL 1903374, at *1 (D.D.C. July 19, 2005), aff'd, 207 Ped.Appx. 5 (D.C.Cir. Nov 27,
2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1326 (2007). According to petitioner, the District of Columbia
Court of Appeals' ruling in Wilson-Bey v. United States, 903 A.2d 818 (D.C. 2006) (en banc),
renders his conviction and sentence invalid. See Pet. at 6-9. He demands that "the portion of
[his] sentence of aiding and abetting first degree murder ... be set aside or vacated," or that he be
granted a new trial. Id. at 27.
1
3
- ttl
Challenges of this nature must be brought by motion in the Superior Court under D.C.
Code § 23-110. In relevant part, D.C. Code § 23-110 provides:
A prisoner in custody under sentence ofthe Superior Court claiming
the right to be released upon the ground that (1) the sentence was
imposed in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the
laws of the District of Columbia, (2) the court was without
jurisdiction to impose the sentence, (3) the sentence was in excess of
the maximum authorized by law, (4) the sentence is otherwise subject
to collateral attack, may move the court to vacate, set aside, or correct
the sentence.
D.C. Code § 23-11O(a). A federal district court shall not entertain such a petition "unless it also
appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention." D.C. Code § 23-110(g). "Section 23-110 has been found to be adequate and
effective because it is coextensive with habeas corpus," Saleh v. Braxton, 788 F. Supp. 1232
(D.D.C. 1992), and "a District of Columbia prisoner has no recourse to a federal judicial forum
unless the local remedy is 'inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention'" Byrd v.
Henderson, 119 F.3d 34,36-37 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (internal footnote omitted); Garris v. Lindsay,
794 F.2d 722, 726 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 993 (1986). A prisoner's lack of success in
his previous attempts to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence by means of a motion
under D.C. Code § 23-11 O(g) does not render this remedy inadequate or ineffective. See Wilson
v. Office of the Chairperson, 892 F. Supp. 277, 280 (D.D.C. 1995). An Order consistent with
this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately.
United States District Judge
Date:
2