Hill v. Clarke
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 1/3/14. Copy sent: yes(tdai, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
LAMAR S. HILL,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No. 3:12CV174
HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Lamar S. Hill, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, brings
this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition") challenging his conviction in the
Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia ("Circuit Court") for possession of crack
cocaine with intent to distribute. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered March 20, 2013,
the Court dismissed Claim Two and the state law portions of Claims Three and Four, denied
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss in part, and ordered Respondent to file further briefing. Hill v.
Clarke, No. 3:12CV174, 2013 WL 1165256, at *1, *6 (E.D. Va. Mar. 20, 2013).
In his
remainingthree claims, Hill argues entitlementto relief based upon the following:
Claim One:
"The Supreme Court of Virginia erred in finding that Hill was not
'in custody' for purposes of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
(1966) and that the trial court properly denied his motion to
suppress" amounting to a due process violation.2 (Br. Supp.
§ 2254 Pet. 6 (emphasis added).)
1 Hill lists his claims in bold. The Court removes the emphasis from the quotations to
Hill's submissions.
2"No State shall. . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law ...." U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?