United States District Court, D. Columbia.
ROOSEVELT RICHARDSON, Petitioner, Pro se, PETERSBURG, VA.
For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent: Bernard J. Delia, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Special Proceedings Section, Washington, DC.
ROBERT L. WILKINS, United States District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Roosevelt Richardson's petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [ECF No. 1] and the Government's Motion to Dismiss Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 7]. For the reasons discussed below, the petition will be dismissed.
In the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, " [f]ollowing a jury trial, [petitioner] was convicted on October 2, 1996, of five felonies relating to a gun injury suffered by Lanita Spears." Richardson v. United States, 8 A.3d 1245, 1246 (D.C. 2010); see Gov't's Mot. to Dismiss Pet'r's Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus (" Gov't Mot." ) at 1 (listing charges set forth in indictment). The court imposed a sentence of 16 years to life imprisonment. Pet. at 1. Petitioner filed an appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on March 6, 1997. Gov't Mot. at 2; see Pet. at 2.
Petitioner also filed a motion under D.C. Code § 23-110 for a new trial, which the Superior Court denied on August 30, 1999, after having conducted an evidentiary hearing. Gov't Mot. at 2. Petitioner appealed this ruling, and the Court of Appeals consolidated it with his direct appeal.  Id. Before the Court of Appeals were the following four arguments:
1) that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the identification testimony of the government's main eyewitness; 2) that the trial court erred in declining to give a missing witness instruction; 3) that there was insufficient evidence to sustain [petitioner's] conviction; and 4) [that] the trial court erred in allowing the government to elicit certain repetitious information from a witness.
Id., Ex. A (Memorandum Opinion and Judgment at 1, Richardson v. United States, Nos. 97-CF-463 & 99-CO-1237 (D.C. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2002)). The Court of Appeals affirmed both the judgment of conviction and the denial of the § 23-110 motion for new trial. Id., Ex. A. Petitioner neither moved to recall the mandate nor filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. See Pet. at 2-3.
Pursuant to the Innocence Protection Act (" IPA" ), see D.C. Code § 22-4135, on October 24, 2006, petitioner filed in the Superior Court another collateral attack on his conviction, this time " on the basis of an affidavit from a witness who was not called at [his] 1996 trial." Richardson, 8 A.3d at 1246. Petitioner " claimed that the affidavit contained 'new evidence' that proved his actual innocence." Id. He also brought a second claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel pursuant to D.C. Code § 23-110. Id. The Superior Court appointed counsel to represent petitioner, held a hearing at which the witness testified, and ultimately denied the motion. Id. at 1248. The Court of Appeals affirmed, noting its " agree[ment] with the trial court that the affidavit and testimony do not entitle ...