14 F.3d 602 (6th Cir. 1994), 93-5553, Pittman v. Raney
|Citation:||14 F.3d 602|
|Party Name:||Gary PITTMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Fred RANEY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.|
|Case Date:||January 05, 1994|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
W.D.Tenn., No. 92-03041, Harton, J.
Before: BOGGS and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.
This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).
This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for federal habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Gary Pittman is a Tennessee inmate. He filed a § 2254 petition in which he challenged the constitutionality of a 1980 multiple-count state court conviction for aggravated rape (three counts), robbery by use of a deadly weapon, and carrying a pistol. Tennessee responded and the district court ultimately ordered that the petition be dismissed. This appeal followed. The parties have briefed the issues; Pittman is proceeding in his own behalf. In addition, Pittman has filed a motion for the appointment of appellate counsel.
Pittman was convicted after a jury trial in 1980 of the aforementioned crimes and thereafter took a direct appeal. Pittman, through counsel, raised the following seven claims of trial error in his appeal:
1) Error in denying the defense request for a continuance to bolster an alibi;
2) Insufficient indictment;
3) Erroneous admission of evidence of prior convictions;
4) Tainted photographic array;
5) Improper certification of an expert witness;
6) Insufficient evidence to support the conviction; and
7) Impropriety of the consecutive sentences.
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals rejected all seven issues on the merits in affirming Pittman's conviction and sentence in all respects. Pittman subsequently sought discretionary review of his appeal in the Supreme Court of Tennessee, presenting all seven claims in his petition. The Supreme Court of Tennessee later denied the application for review in a summary order.
Pittman then filed his petition...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP