Hill v. Clarke

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 1/3/14. Copy sent: yes(tdai, )

Download PDF
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?