Pittman v. Clarke, No. 3:2018cv00554 - Document 20 (E.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roderick C. Young on 06/13/2019. Copy mailed to Petitioner. (walk, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pittman v. Clarke Doc. 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division STERLING NORRIS PITTMAN, M I 32019 CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICUrvlOi\'D. VA Petitioner, Civil Action No. 3:18CV554 V. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Sterling Norris Pittman, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition," ECF No. 5) challenging his 2014 convictions in the Circuit Court of the County of Henrico, Virginia ("Circuit Court"). Pittman argues that he is entitled to reliefon the following grounds:' Claim One: (a) "The trial court erred for not instructing [the] jury on the elements of first-degree murder." (§ 2254 Pet. 5.) (b) "[The] evidence presented at trial was insufTicient to establish first-degree [murder]." {Id.) Claim Two: "The trial court erred by not disregarding the testimony of Shamika Gee, [the] Commonwealth's key witness, who has admitted under oath that she ha[s] lied." {Id. at 7.) Claim Three: "[Pittman's] Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because the Commonwealth knowingly used perjured testimony by Shamika Gee." {Id. at 8.) Respondent moves to dismiss on the grounds that Pittman's claims are procedurally defaulted and barred from review here and, in the alternative, that they lack merit. Pittman filed an "Affidavit," responding to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss ("Response," ECF No. 15). For ' The Court employs the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF docketing system for citations to the parties' submissions. The Court corrects the spelling, punctuation, and capitalization in the quotations from Pittman's submissions. Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
