Snowden v. Hackworth, No. 3:2019cv00016 - Document 28 (E.D. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roderick C. Young on 03/23/2020. Copy mailed to plaintiff. (tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Snowden v. Hackworth Doc. 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division MICHAEL LAVONN SNOWDEN, Petitioner, V. Civil No.3:19CV16 D. HACKWORTH, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Michael Lavonn Snowden,a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se brings this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition," ECF No. 1) challenging his conviction in the Circuit Court of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia ("Circuit Court"). In his § 2254 Petition, Snowden argues that he is entitled to relief based upon the following grounds:.1 Claim One: "Commonwealth denied Petitioner explicit right to confront his accuser." (§ 2254 Pet. 7.) Claim Two: "Due process of law violations, by Portsmouth Police Dept., in obtaining; Commonwealth allowing admission of statements violating selfincrimination privilege." {Id. at 19.) Claim Three: "Evidence was insufficient to convict Petitioner of statutory burglary, with the intent to commit larceny, assault and battery, etc." {id. at 29), because: (a)the destruction of property charge was dismissed and there was no evidence of damage to the shed {id.)\ (b)"he did not enter or exit the shed"{id. at 31); (c) "a shed is not a building, or place of human habitation . . . Commonwealth is not sufficient in proving element to sustain a conviction" {id.). Claim Four: "Evidence was insufficient to prove Petitioner attempted to steal, or and the intention to steal any of Bell's property" {id. at 32), because "the ^ The Court corrects the capitalization, spelling, and punctuation in quotations from Snowden's submissions. The Court employs the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF docketing system for citations to the record. 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.
