1:08-cr-00489
M.D.N.C.Sep 27, 2016Background
- Pittman was arrested in Nov. 2008; police searching his girlfriend Jessica Malachi’s apartment found a zipped black bag in a shared bathroom closet containing cash, two handguns (a Smith & Wesson .45 stained with dye and a Taurus 9mm), magazines, and ammunition. A Taurus box was also in plain view on a couch.
- Surveillance and eyewitnesses from two bank robberies identified a silver handgun; government also recovered a silver 9mm from Pittman’s car after his Jan. 27, 2009 Atlanta arrest and an all-black air pistol in the trunk.
- At trial Pittman was convicted on multiple counts, including two § 924(c) counts for brandishing/using a firearm during robberies; the Fourth Circuit affirmed. He was sentenced to 609 months.
- In his § 2255 petition Pittman alleged (Claim 4) ineffective assistance because trial counsel did not move to suppress the bag’s contents based on Malachi’s lack of authority to consent; he argued suppression could have allowed a defense that an air pistol (not a firearm) was used.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the § 2255 petition; Pittman objected only to denial of Claim 4 and moved to amend to add a Fourth Amendment challenge to his Atlanta arrest.
- The district court reviewed de novo, concluded suppression (even if assumed) would not have created a reasonable probability of a different outcome given other overwhelming evidence (confessions, eyewitness descriptions, silver gun in car, testimony that Pittman owned/used handguns), adopted the Recommendation, denied the § 2255 motion and denied amendment as futile and time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Pittman’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress the bag found in the shared closet | Counsel was deficient for not moving to suppress because Malachi lacked authority to consent to search the zipped bag; suppression would undercut § 924(c) brandishing findings by allowing a theory that Pittman used only an air pistol | Even if suppression were granted, overwhelming independent evidence (Pittman admissions, eyewitnesses describing silver handgun, silver 9mm found in his car, Taurus box) would still support convictions; consent to search the apartment was valid | Denied: no reasonable probability of different outcome; prejudice prong of Strickland not satisfied; objection overruled |
| Whether the proposed amendment adding a Fourth Amendment challenge to the Jan. 27, 2009 Atlanta arrest should be allowed | The arrest was actually on a BOLO for a carjacking (not merely a stolen-car stop), which misled him and prevented timely Fourth Amendment litigation; suppression / dismissal warranted | The proposed claim is untimely under AEDPA, does not relate back, was cognizable at trial (record shows BOLO/stolen-vehicle references), and fails on the merits and is procedurally barred | Denied as futile and time‑barred; claim was available at trial and would not provide relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test requiring deficient performance and resulting prejudice)
- Lee v. Clarke, 781 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2015) (articulating prejudice standard for Strickland in postconviction context)
- Matlock v. United States, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (third party with common authority may consent to search)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (officer may rely on apparent authority to consent if belief is reasonable)
- Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976) (where the state provided full and fair opportunity to litigate Fourth Amendment claims, federal habeas relief is generally unavailable)
- Block v. United States, 590 F.2d 535 (4th Cir. 1978) (privacy interests in locked containers can defeat third-party consent to search)