case facts

The case facts in the case of "Commonwealth of Virginia v. Travis Eugene Williams (case number CR04-558-01 through CR04-563-01)" that are deemed wrongful and unconstitutional are outlined as followed. Travis will be referred to as the "petitioner" throughout these case facts.
 

Statement Of Case
 

1. On January 20, 2004 the petitioner was charged with one count of breaking and entering, two counts of robbery, two counts of abduction, four counts of use of a firearm, and one count of discharging a firearm into an occupied building.
 

2. On June 14, 2004 two counts of use of firearm, and two counts of abduction were nolle prossed in the Petersburg General District Court, the court appointed the petitioner counsel, and the remaining six (6) felony charges were forwarded to the circuit court for trial.
 

3. Petitioner was assigned a court appointed attorney: Phillip T. DiStanislao, Jr., Esquire of 800 South Sycamore Street, Petersburg, Virginia 23804. The Commonwealth's attorney for the case: Cheryl Wilson, Esquire of 150 North Sycamore Street, Petersburg, Virginia 23103. Judge: James F. D'Alton, Jr. On September 13, 2004 the initial jury trial resulted in mistrial. A new trial was set for November 16, 2004. On November 16, 2004 at petitioner's second jury trial, the petitioner was found guilty of one count of breaking and entering, two counts of robbery, two counts of use of a firearm, and one count of discharging a firearm into an occupied building. Case numbers CR04-558-01 through CR04-563-01. Sentencing was set for February 16, 2005.
 

4. On February 16, 2005 the petitioner was sentenced to 20 years for the breaking and entering, 5 years for each robbery, 3 years for the first count of using a firearm, 5 years for the second count of using a firearm, and a $2,500 dollar fine for shooting into an occupied building. The total sentence: 38 consecutive years in the Virginia DOC.
 

5. On March 15, 2005 trial counsel for the petitioner filed for leave of withdraw, and new counsel was appointed to represent petitioner on appeal. Counsel for appeal: Elbert D. Mumphery, IV of 20 East Tabb Street, Suite 201, Petersburg, Virginia 23803.
 

6. The petitioner's appeal was denied in both the Virginia Court of Appeals, and the Virginia Supreme Court without an evidentiary hearing.
 

7. Petitioner sought heabeas corpus relief, pro se, and was denied on both the State and Federal level without an evidentiary hearing.
 

Statement Of Facts
 

8. On January 19, 2004 a local Hardee's restaurant in the city of Petersburg on south crater road was robbed. No one was hurt...only money was taken and some property was damaged. The petitioner was only 19 years old at the time of the offense and became a suspect due to his cell phone being found at the crime scene.
 

9. The petitioner was later arrested from his job at Wendy's on Crater Road in Petersburg by a Det. Liverman of the Petersburg police, interrogated, and coerced. After the coercion, the detective stepped out of the interrogation room and deleted approximately 30 minutes of video footage (the 30 minutes confirming coercion) from what turned out to be Commonwealth's video confession and evidence against the petitioner. Commonwealth's exhibit-6. The petitioner was then charged with ten felonies and scheduled to appear before the court. At the Petitioner's preliminary hearing, four (4) charges were nolle prossed. Petitioner was assigned a court appointed attorney and cases CR04-558-01 through CR04-563-01 were scheduled for trial.
 

10. Petitioner informed his court appointed attorney of the coercion and deleted footage. Petitioner was adamant about the fact of coercion and made it clear that if the entire video confession, to include the deleted footage confirming the alleged coercion, could not be played for the finders of fact, then none of the video confession should be shown. November 16, 2004 trial transcript, pg. 11, line 9 - 13. This was strictly to maintain the fundamental fairness of the trial proceeding by allowing the finders of fact to not only review the confession, but also the alleged coercion concealed by deleted footage.
 

11. The first jury trial on September 13, 2004 ended as a mistrial. November 16, 2004 trial transcript, pg 3, line 1 - line 3. At the second jury trial on November 16th, 2004 petitioner was found guilty of six (6) felony offenses and later sentenced to 38 consecutive years in state prison without parole and a $2,500 dollar fine.
 

12. As the November 16th trial began the court appointed attorney for the petitioner addressed the petitioner's claims of coercion and missing footage. November 16, 2004 trial transcript, pg 3, line 9 - pg. 4, line 10. At this point the Commonwealth's attorney informed the court that the missing footage was a redaction by the Commonwealth for the benefit of the petitioner. November 16, 2004 trial transcript, pg. 8, line 9 - line 13.
 

13. At the November 16th trial during the cross examination of Det. Liverman, Liverman initially denied responsibility for the deleted footage from the video confession, yet later admitted to being responsible for the deleted footage. November 16, 2004 trial transcript, pg. 117, line 24 - pg. 120, line 4.

14. At the deliberation phase of the November 16th trial the Commonwealth's attorney introduced a list of prior convictions known as instruction 13-A with the jury instructions as evidence of moral turpitude. November 16, 2004 trial transcript, pg. 172, line 23 - pg. 173, line 1. This list of prior convictions known as instruction 13-A included several fraudulent felony and misdemeanor convictions of which the court appointed attorney for petitioner signed off on without confirming the validity of the convictions listed therein.
 

15. At the close of the November 16th trial the court appointed attorney for petitioner motioned to strike the Commonwealth's case stating that "the jury's verdict is contrary to the law and evidence that was presented",yet the court overruled. The honorable judge James F. D'Alton, Jr. presided. November 16, 2004 trial transcript, pg. 211, line 2-8.
 

16. At the sentencing phase of petitioner's trial evidence of petitioner's juvenile history that included psychiatric treatment in a psychiatric treatment center for children on more than one occasion was never introduced despite the court's order for a full presentence report on petitioner.
 

17. On February 16, 2005 the petitioner was sentenced to 38 consecutive years with a $2,500 dollar fine.
 

18. Petitioner sought appellate relief via court appointed counsel, yet was denied without an evidentiary hearing. At this time the petitioner was provided with a copy of the case file and discovered that there were false felony and misdemeanor convictions listed in the Commonwealth's list of purported list of prior convictions known as "instruction 13-A". Petitioner had never seen this list prior to this time. See Appendix 1, A true copy of the Commonwealth's purported list of prior convictions known as instruction 13-A.
 

19. Petitioner further sought habeas corpus relief and was also denied without an evidentiary hearing. While in pursuit of habeas corpus relief, petitioner contacted Petersburg's Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court, as well as Prince George General District Court and Juvenile & Domestic Relations District Court in efforts to get confirmation of the false convictions listed in the Commonwealth's purported list of prior convictions known as instruction 13-A.
 

20. On November 24, 2015 petitioner received a response from Prince George General District Court and Juvenile & Domestic Relations District Court confirming that there was no records of petitioner having any past or present convictions in that court. See Appendix 2, A true copy of the November 24, 2015 letter from the Prince George General District Court and Juvenile & Domestic Relations District Court.
 

21. Petitioner exhausted his judicial remedies as provided by Virginia statute and the rules governing Virginia Courts, yet seeks redress of constitutional violations in his case.
 

22. While Virginia's statutory laws and court rules may render petitioner procedurally bared to file claims of reversible error, the petitioner relies solely upon the supremacy of the constitution to attain the ends of justice.
 

Claims I - VIII.
 

Claim I, Police Misconduct: The detective's deletion of approximately 30 minutes of footage from the video confession known as Commonwealth's exhibit-6 was clearly destruction of evidence equal to obstruction of justice. The deletion of footage deprived the petitioner of a fair and impartial trial because the finders of fact were not able to see what happened in the missing footage, and thus could NOT determine the weight and overall inadmissibility of the video confession. As a matter of record, Det. Liverman admitted to the deleted footage during cross examination despite his initial denial.
 

Claim II, Prosecutorial Misconduct: The Commonwealth's attorney stated that the missing footage in the video confession known as Commonwealth's exhibit-6 was a mere redaction by the prosecution for the benefit of petitioner for trial, when in fact, the redaction of the video confession was the deletion of footage by the detective prior to the video confession ever reaching the Commonwealth's attorney to stand as evidence against the petitioner. One can only infer that the Commonwealth's attorneys actions were deliberate with intent to prevent the video confession from being suppressed. The Commonwealth's case in chief was built on the video confession known as Commonwealth's exhibit-6, as without it the prosecution could not establish a prima facie case. The prosecutor must have known this. Any finder of fact can see said logic especially considering that the first trial ended as a mistrial. Unfortunately, this very act prejudiced the petitioner and ultimately deprived him of a fair and impartial trial as guaranteed by the due process clause of the Constitution.

 

Claim III, Prosecutorial Misconduct: Once the defense disclosed its claims of coercion and deleted footage from the video confession confirming said coercion, the prosecution had a moral obligation to protect the fundamental fairness of the trial proceeding. The Commonwealth's attorney must have known that the missing footage from the video confession wherein the petitioner alleged coercion took place was imperative to the defense in the same sense as exculpatory evidence/Brady material. However, with reckless disregard, the prosecutor showed the video confession minus the footage that was deleted. Video footage was allowed to be deleted and ignored as though it never existed, when it fact, the record clearly shows that it did, and that not only did it deprive the petitioner the right to challenge the admissibility of the video confession during trial based on the constitutional guarantee not to be compelled to be a witness against oneself, it deprived the petitioner the right to call upon evidence in petitioners favor as guaranteed by the constitution. At the November 16, 2004 trial, the petitioner made it clear that "if the whole video could not be played, then none of the video should be played".
 

Claim IV, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Counsel was ineffective due to his failure to object to and or suppress the showing of the video confession in light of the missing footage and the petitioner's claim of coercion. The missing footage was the footage necessary to show the alleged coercion, thus rendering the video confession prejudice to the defense without said deleted footage. With the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself in criminal cases, this failure fell below the standard of reasonableness and therefore deprived the petitioner of due process.
 

Claim V, Prosecutorial Misconduct: In the preparation of the purported list of prior convictions on the petitioner known as "jury instruction 13-A", it's hard to believe that the Commonwealth's attorney, given the volume of her experience, erred with the entry of not one, but several false convictions. Among the false convictions listed was robbery, thus supporting the prosecution's claim of moral turpitude and influencing a verdict favorable to the Commonwealth. The use of false evidence to secure a conviction in a criminal case, either knowingly or unknowingly, is reversible error.
 

Claim VI, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Counsel was ineffective due to his failure to confirm the purported convictions listed in the Commonwealth's list of prior convictions known as instruction 13-A. This failure fell below the standard of reasonableness and deprived the petitioner of adequate defense. Had counsel confirmed all convictions he would have known to object to or move to suppress the false entries.
 

Claim VII, Error Upon The Court: At the close of the November 16, 2004 trial proceeding, the counsel for the petitioner motioned to strike the Commonwealth's case stating that "the jury's verdict is contrary to the law and evidence that was presented". The judge presiding over the trial proceeding had a moral obligation to safeguard the fundamental fairness of the trial, yet failed to do so by allowing the jury's verdict to stand. In doing so, the court deprived the petitioner at trial of his rights as guaranteed by State and Federal constitution.
 

Claim VIII, Unconstitutional Convictions and Imprisonment: In light of the facts and circumstances on the face of the record highlighted in claims I through VII, the petitioner's convictions in cases CR04-558-01 through CR04-563-01 are contrary to the constitution, therefore, are unconstitutional and invalid. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". However, the petitioner was deprived of due process, and thus renders the petitioner's convictions and imprisonment unconstitutional.