Hicks v. Dir., Dep't of Corr.
289 Va. 288
| Va. | 2015Background
- Hicks challenged a Norfolk habeas petition as untimely under Code § 8.01-654(A)(2) despite Brady-based claims.
- He alleged exculpatory evidence (Roscoe affidavit) was suppressed or not disclosed; Roscoe allegedly admitted items belonged to him and not Hicks.
- Petition filed July 24, 2013; direct judgments concluded January 9, 2004; events span 1999–2000 crimes and 2004 convictions.
- Commonwealth argued the one-year/ two-year limitations barred relief; Hicks argued tolling via 8.01-229(D) due to suppression.
- Trial court dismissed on timeliness grounds; matter was appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
- Court held tolling under 8.01-229(D) applicable to 8.01-654(A)(2); ends-of-justice analysis applied to preserve Brady claim viability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 8.01-229(D) toll the sentencing period under 8.01-654(A)(2)? | Hicks: tolling applies when obstruction by government withholds exculpatory evidence. | Commonwealth: tolling requires moral turpitude obstruction and 8.01-654(A)(2) has no tolling exception. | Yes; tolling applies to Brady claims under 8.01-229(D). |
| Does the ends-of-justice exception apply to Rule 5:25 tolling in this Brady case? | Ends-of-justice should apply to avoid grave injustice if Brady claim meritorious. | Gives weight to Rule 5:25 limits and requires grave injustice to override strict timing. | Ends-of-justice exception can apply in limited circumstances to avoid grave injustice. |
| Was the withheld Roscoe statement material to Hicks’ Brady claim and prejudicial under Workman/Strickler? | Roscoe affidavit was exculpatory and could undermine confidence in verdict if undisclosed. | Evidence was not material; Hicks’ trial relied on other evidence (confession, weapon ownership). | Not material; no prejudice; Brady claim fails on materiality; ends-of-justice exception not invoked for this reason. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1999) (Brady materiality and duty to disclose; standard for materiality)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (materiality not requiring certainty; collective impact of withheld evidence)
- Workman v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 633 (Va. 2006) (establishes Brady materiality framework in Virginia)
- Gheorghiu v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 678 (Va. 2010) (ends-of-justice Rule 5:25 when grave injustice would occur)
- Ali v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 665 (Va. 2010) (limits and application of ends-of-justice in tolling analysis)
- Charles v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 14 (Va. 2005) (tolling considerations in non-criminal statute contexts)
- Jimenez v. Commonwealth, 241 Va. 244 (Va. 1991) (procedural limits in habeas petitions and related scrutiny)
- Culpeper Nat'l Bank v. Tidewater Improvement Co., 119 Va. 73 (Va. 1916) (moral turpitude standard for obstruction to tolling)
- Casey v. Merck & Co., 283 Va. 411 (Va. 2012) (statutory tolling and exceptions in Virginia code scheme)