Hubbard v. South Carolina, State of
8:25-cv-00245
| D.S.C. | Jul 14, 2025Background
- Petitioner, Deborah Videtto Guy, is a state prisoner serving a life without parole sentence for murder in South Carolina.
- She previously served a sentence for a 1976 armed robbery conviction.
- In this habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Guy seeks to challenge her 1976 armed robbery conviction and, implicitly, aspects of her current murder sentence.
- The magistrate judge recommended summary dismissal, finding Guy was no longer "in custody" on the 1976 conviction for § 2254 purposes and that any challenge to her current sentence was barred as a successive petition.
- Guy objected, arguing continuing custody based on 1976 conviction's effects and that she only recently learned of constitutional issues.
- The district court overruled her objections, adopted the magistrate's report, and dismissed the petition without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Guy "in custody" for her 1976 conviction under § 2254? | She is still effectively in custody because the conviction impacts parole. | No custody: she completed the sentence for the 1976 conviction. | Not in custody; cannot challenge 1976 conviction. |
| Is a habeas petition against her current sentence successive? | Challenge to current sentence is valid as it relates to past wrongs. | Multiple prior § 2254 filings; this is a successive petition. | Successive; barred without appellate approval. |
| Do new 2024 constitutional arguments revive her petition? | Newly discovered issues justify review of old convictions. | Jurisdictional defects override timing or discovery of new claims. | Jurisdictional bar remains; objections overruled. |
| Certificate of appealability | Entitled due to substantial constitutional claims. | No substantial showing of denial of constitutional rights presented. | Denied; not warranted under the standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (district judges review magistrate recommendations de novo)
- Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 ("in custody" requirement for habeas; prior convictions affecting current sentences do not satisfy custody)
- Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (district court lacks jurisdiction over unauthorized successive habeas petitions)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (standard for certificate of appealability)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (certificate of appealability requires debatable constitutional and procedural rulings)
- Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676 (requirements for certificate of appealability)