Summary
finding that the statute of limitations on Coleman's claim began to run on the date on which he received a copy of the legal update and in which the exercise of due diligence would have led him to discover the alleged discrepancy
Summary of this case from Herbert v. JohnsonOpinion
Civil Action No. 7:07-cv-00007.
July 25, 2007
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner, Garney Lee Coleman, a Virginia inmate proceedingpro se, filed this action as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Coleman claims that he is entitled to two years of jail-time credit on his sentence of imprisonment. This matter is before the court on respondent's motion to dismiss. Respondent argues that Coleman's petition is untimely, with no grounds for equitable tolling, and that the claim is procedurally barred because the state court dismissed it as untimely. The court finds that even if Coleman's claim was timely filed and not barred, it would nevertheless fail on the merits. Therefore, the court grants respondent's motion to dismiss.
I.
On October 29, 1998, the Buchanan County Circuit Court ("Circuit Court") sentenced Coleman to ten years, all suspended, for manufacturing marijuana. On March 2, 1999, the Circuit Court found Coleman in violation of the terms of his probation and revoked one year of his suspended sentence. On September 11, 2001, the Circuit Court again found Coleman in violation of the terms of his probation and revoked another year of his suspended sentence. On June 4, 2003, the Circuit Court found Coleman in violation of the terms of his probation yet again and revoked the balance of his sentence. In its order, the Circuit Court determined the balance of his sentence to be 9 years, reflecting credit for only one of the two 12-month sentences he served as a result of the previous revocations of his suspended sentence. Coleman did not appeal any of these judgments.
This calculation of his sentence was later corrected by the Virginia Department of Corrections as noted herein.
On July 16, 2003, the state took Coleman into custody from the local jail. The Virginia Department of Corrections ("VDOC") computed his record based on a 9-year total sentence as imposed by the Circuit Court and, in addition, applied jail-time credit of 104 days, reflecting time he spent in the Buchanan County Jail from April 3, 2003 to July 16, 2003. The VDOC sent Coleman a copy of his "legal update," reflecting his 9-year sentence and the jail-time credit, on August 12, 2003.
A review of the record indicates that Coleman spent the following time in jail prior to his transfer to state custody: August 31, 1998 to September 4, 1998 (4 days); February 1, 1999 to December 24, 1999 (325 days); August 8, 2001 to May 31, 2002 (296 days); and April 3, 2003 to July 16, 2003 (104 days). At the time of his legal update on August 12, 2003, Coleman was credited 104 days for the time he spent in jail from April 3, 2003 to July 16, 2003. In addition, the state court order, dated June 4, 2003, took into account credit for 1-year of the time he spent in jail (by stating that the balance of his 10-year sentence was now 9 years). Presumably, this 1-year credit accounted for the time Coleman spent in jail from August 31, 1998 to September 4, 1998 (4 days) and February 1, 1999 to December 24, 1999 (325 days), for a total of 329 days. Accordingly, as of his legal update dated August 12, 2003, the only jail time Coleman had not received any credit for was the 296 days he spent in jail from August 8, 2001 to May 31, 2002, and even that has now been credited toward his sentence pursuant to the legal update dated March 8, 2007. Coleman has not presented any evidence that he should be credited for any time period(s) other than those listed above.
Coleman filed a state habeas petition on February 21, 2006, alleging that he should be given two years of jail-time credit for the time he served when his suspended sentence was revoked. The Supreme Court of Virginia denied his petition as untimely. He then filed his federal habeas petition on January 4, 2007, arguing that he "was not [credited] some 2 years imprisonment" on his sentence. He supports his argument by claiming that the state "admits" by affidavit that he has served two 12-month sentences on his original 10-year sentence. He argues that these two 12-month periods should be credited toward the 9-year sentence that the court imposed on June 4, 2003.
It appears that Coleman believes that he should only have a 7-year balance remaining on his sentence. The court finds no merit to this argument. Coleman's original sentence was 10 years and 2 years were revoked at two separate revocation proceedings. Therefore, the balance remaining on his suspended sentence at the time he entered state custody should have been 8 years.
On March 8, 2007, after Coleman filed this action, the VDOC updated Coleman's time computation record giving him an additional jail-time credit for the period of August 8, 2001 to May 31, 2002, reflecting time he spent in the local jail when his suspended sentence was revoked the second time on September 11, 2001.
II.
Although Coleman's claim under § 2254 is untimely and procedurally barred, it also has no merit. Coleman seeks credit for the two 12-month sentences he received as a result of the revocations of his suspended sentence on March 2, 1999 and September 11, 2001. The time Coleman spent in jail based on the first revocation was indirectly credited to him through the Circuit Court's order on June 4, 2003, where the court indicated that the remaining balance of his suspended sentence was 9 years of the original 10-year sentence. At that time, Coleman was still owed credit for the time he spent in jail for the second revocation of his suspended sentence (296 days). By legal update dated March 8, 2007, the VDOC gave Coleman credit for 296 days, reflecting the time he spent in jail for the second revocation. Coleman has not shown that he spent any other time in jail other than those times listed in this opinion. Accordingly, the court finds that Coleman has been credited for all the jail-time he served, and he is not entitled to any other jail-time credit. Therefore, in light of his new legal update, Coleman's claim has no merit.III.
For the foregoing reasons, the court grants respondent's motion to dismiss and dismisses Coleman's petition.