Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Coleman v. Perritt

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

December 21, 2017

SAMSON JAMARCO COLEMAN, Petitioner,
v.
BRAD PERRITT, Respondent.

          ORDER

          Frank D. Whitney Chief United States District Judge.

         THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Petitioner Samson Jamarco Coleman's pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.)

         I. BACKGROUND

         Petitioner is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina, who, according to his habeas Petition, pled guilty in Mecklenburg County Superior Court on January 12, 2012, to three counts of discharging a firearm into a motor vehicle while in operation, one count of discharging a firearm into occupied property, and one count of voluntary manslaughter. (§ 2254 Pet. 1, Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner was sentenced to three consecutive terms of 82-108 months imprisonment. (§ 2254 Pet. 1.) He did not file a direct appeal. (§ 2254 Pet. 2.)

         On September 20, 2016, Petitioner sought habeas corpus relief in the North Carolina Court of Appeals on due process and subject matter jurisdiction grounds. (§ 2254 Pet. 3.) Habeas relief was denied, and Petitioner filed a petition for discretionary review in the North Carolina Supreme Court on October 31, 2016, which also was denied. State v. Coleman, No. 404P16-1, 794 S.E.2d 322 ( N.C. Dec. 8, 2016) (Mem). Petitioner filed a second petition for discretionary review on September 20, 2017; it suffered the same fate as his first. State v. Coleman, No. 404P16-2, 803 S.E.2d 818 ( N.C. Sept. 25, 2017) (Mem).

         Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court on February 22, 2017, and an amended habeas petition on May 19, 2017. See Coleman v. Perritt, 3:17-cv-00082-FDW (W.D. N.C. ), Doc. Nos. 1, 2. On June 1, 2017, the Court dismissed the amended petition without prejudice because it failed to comply with Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Id. at Doc. No. 3.

         Petitioner filed the instant § 2254 Petition on November 20, 2017.[1] (§ 2254 Pet. 14, Doc. No. 1.) He cites the following grounds for relief: (1) the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter judgment in criminal case number 09CRS068779; (2) the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter judgment in criminal case number 09CRS068778; and (3) the North Carolina Supreme Court erred in refusing to review the North Carolina Court of Appeals' denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. (§ 2254 Pet. 5, 6, 8.)

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases directs district courts to examine habeas petitions promptly. Rule 4, 28 U.S.C.A. foll. § 2254. When it plainly appears from any such petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the reviewing court must dismiss the petition. Id.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Grounds One and Two

         As noted, the Court dismissed Petitioner's first § 2254 petition because it failed to comply with Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Rule 2(c) requires a petitioner filing a § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus to specify all the grounds for relief available to him and to state the facts that support each ground for relief. Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C.A. foll. § 2254. In his first petition, Petitioner stated the following: “The Mecklenburg County Superior Court was without authority of law/jurisdiction to enter judgment against Petitioner and failed to uphold due process of law.” Am. § 2254 Pet. 5, Colman, 3:17-cv-00082-FDW, Doc. No. 2. When it dismissed the Petition, the Court explained that Petitioner had “failed . . . to state any facts to support his asserted grounds for relief. Consequently, it is impossible for the Court to determine whether Petitioner is entitled to any relief.” Order Dismiss. Am. § 2254 Pet. 1, id. at Doc. No. 3.

         Petitioner has again failed to comply with Rule 2(c). As his first ground for relief, Petitioner claims the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter judgment in criminal case number 09CRS068779. In support, Petitioner asserts only that “indictment 09CRS068779 fails to sufficiently identify the offense, protect against double jeopardy, enable the defendant to prepair [sic] for trial, or to support a judgment on conviction.” (§ 2254 Pet. 5.)

         In his second ground for relief, Petitioner claims the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter judgment in criminal case number 09CRS068778. In support, Petitioner asserts only that “indictment 09CRS068778 fails to protect against double jeopardy. And, due to its insufficiency it is unable to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.