Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Smith

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

September 25, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
INDIA PERLETTA SMITH, Petitioner.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION (DENYING 28 U.S.C. § 2255 MOTION)

          HENRY E.HUDSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         India Perletta Smith, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, brings this motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct her federal sentence ("§ 2255 Motion, " ECF No. 41). The Government has moved to dismiss on the ground that Smith's § 2255 Motion is barred by the statute of limitations. (ECF No. 48.) For the reasons set forth below, the Government's Motion to Dismiss will be granted, and Smith's § 2255 Motion will be denied.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

         On July 20, 2010, the Government filed a Criminal Information against Smith, charging her with one count of carjacking resulting in death in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2119(3) and 2. (Criminal Information 1, ECF No. 13.) On July 22, 2010, Smith pled guilty to the one count contained in the Criminal Information. (Plea Agreement ¶ 1, ECF No. 16.) On October 25, 2010, the Court entered judgment against Smith and sentenced her to 360 months of imprisonment. (J. 2, ECF No. 22.) Smith did not appeal.

         On September 8, 2016, Smith placed the present § 2255 Motion in the prison mail system for mailing to this Court. (§ 2255 Mot. 23 .)[1] In her § 2255 Motion, Smith asserts the following claims for relief:[2]

Claim 1: "My 6th Amendment to the Const, was violated by failure to allow me to confront witnesses." (Id. at 3.)[3]
Claim 2: "Potentially corroborating witnesses - accused rights to confront witnesses U.S.C.S. Constitution Amendment 6 violated." (Id. at 4.)
Claim 3: "Federal law and the U.S. Const. § 14 was violated ... Purported admission by someone else ...." (Id. at 7.)
Claim 4: "Federal law ... [was] violated .. . Codefendants' background-codefendants all are felons." (Id. at 8.)
Claim 5: "Defendant's prior statements - self-incriminating, but requested [a] lawyer, they still made me talk without [a] lawyer." (Id. at 9.)
Claim 6: "Defendant's sanity - failure to raise and indicated defense to see if I was mentally competent." (Id.)
Claim 7: "For sentencing -1 was under duress and did not comprehend what was going on." (Id.)
Claim 8: "Mitigating evidence - was never presented." (Id.)
Claim 9: "Discovery materials - when asked my attorney would get angry [and] yell at me. It was never presented." (Id.)
Claim 10: "Exculpatory evidence - never presented." (Id. at 10.)
Claim 11: "Information given the defendant by the prosecutor -1 told my lawyer ... that I did not want to sign the plea because 'I did not ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.