Where the Virginia Supreme Court didn't think that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should apply to the case of Brian David Hill being convicted of Indecent Exposure under Virginia Code § 18.2-387 because he was not under State Custody even though he asserted 'Actual Innocence' as one of the grounds for his Petition which could constitute cruel and unusual punishment inflicted and deprived Petitioner of Due Process of Law?

Questions Presented Where the Virginia Supreme Court didn’t think that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should apply to the case of Brian David Hill being convicted of Indecent Exposure under Virginia Code § 18.2-387 because he was not under State Custody even though he asserted “Actual Innocence” as one of the grounds for his Petition which could constitute cruel and unusual punishment inflicted and deprived Petitioner of Due Process of Law? Where the Virginia Supreme Court had failed to recognize that Petitioner was in fact serving an additional sentence of 9 months of imprisonment and additional years of Federal Supervised Release as a repercussion or result of his wrongful conviction of Indecent Exposure under Virginia Code § 18.2-387 but only kept its focus on whether he was serving a State Sentence for a wrongful conviction that he was challenging on at least one ground of “Actual . . Innocence” that is not supposed to be procedurally ii barred according to past Supreme Court decisions on Habeas Corpus decisions on Federal and State cases? Where the Virginia Supreme Court dismissed | the Petition for Appeal over appealing the Circuit Court of Martinsville’s denial of the Petition for the Writ of Habeas Corpus even though Petitioner had a strong showing that he may be factually innocent of his charge of Indecent Exposure under Virginia Code | § 18.2-387 and that had the Virginia Supreme Court provided such relief by granting the Petition for Appeal then it could have led to an evidentiary | hearing in the Circuit Court which may have led to an actual innocence verdict? | Where case law precedent in this very Court | contradicts the Supreme Court of Virginia’s opinion and decision on December 21, 2020, that the Supreme | Court’s job is to keep in uniformity with other top Appeals Courts decisions and State Supreme Court | decisions under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. | Constitution? Where the “due process of law” clause of the U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, regarding the iii State’s obligation to follow the United States Constitution including the Due Process Clause is being deprived by the Commonwealth of Virginia and by the Circuit Court of Martinsville and where judgments/orders that may not even have valid jurisdiction to have ever been entered is being allowed and actual innocence is completely being overlooked which deprives Petitioner of being allowed to prove Factual Innocence to his State charge and Conviction which ultimately caused a revocation of Petitioner’s Supervised Release on September 12, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina? Where the Virginia Supreme Court had failed to recognize the U.S. Constitution’s miscarriage of justice exception for habeas corpus procedural defects and that “actual innocence claim to a wrongful conviction in a state court should be an exception toa | state procedural or jurisdictional defect? | iv