Harvey v. Warden of Coffeewood Correctional Center ( 2004 )

VIRGINIA:
In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court
Building in the City of Richmond on Thursday, the 10th day of June,
2004.
James Harvey, No. 177879, Petitioner,
against Record No. 022291
Warden of the Coffeewood
Correctional Center, Respondent.
Upon a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
James Harvey was convicted of rape and sodomy in the Circuit
Court of Fairfax County and by final order dated April 30, 1990, was
sentenced to serve 25 years in the penitentiary for the rape and 15
years for the sodomy. In January 2002, after exhausting his
opportunities for state and federal direct and collateral review of
his convictions, Harvey filed a motion in the Circuit Court of
Fairfax County, pursuant to Code § 19.2-327.1, seeking post-trial
scientific analysis of certain evidence. On March 1, 2002, the
circuit court ordered the Division of Forensic Science to test the
DNA from the human biological evidence obtained from Harvey, another
co-defendant, and the victim. On May 15, 2002, after testing was
completed, the Division of Forensic Science filed a certificate of
analysis stating that Harvey could not be eliminated as a possible
contributor to the sperm fractions found on the victim.
On September 24, 2002, Harvey filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus in this Court, challenging the validity of the
certificate of analysis and related test results. We conclude that
this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the petition. See
Gaston v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 175, 585 S.E.2d 597 (2003).
Subsection G of Code § 19.2-327.1 expressly states, in
pertinent part, that "[a]n action under this section . . . shall not
form the basis for relief in any habeas corpus proceeding or any
other appeal." When a statute is clear and unambiguous, a court
must consider the words used in the statute to ascertain its meaning
and intent. Gaston, 266 Va. at 176, 585 S.E.2d at 596; Yamaha Motor
Corp. v. Quillian, 264 Va. 656, 665, 571 S.E.2d 122, 126 (2002);
Harrison & Bates, Inc. v. Featherstone Assocs., 253 Va. 364, 368,
484 S.E.2d 883, 885 (1997). The language used in Code § 19.2-
327.1(G) is clear and unambiguous and means that circuit court
proceedings under Code § 19.2-327.1 are not subject to review in
this Court, whether by direct appeal or a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. Consequently, Harvey's petition is dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction, the rule is discharged, and the respondent
shall recover of the petitioner his costs expended about his defense
herein.
This order shall be published in the Virginia Reports.
A Copy,
Teste:
Patricia H. Krueger, Clerk
2