Pittman v. Newjersey, Civil Action No. 15-5546 (JMV)

ELIJAH PITTMAN, Petitioner, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al. Respondents.

Civil Action No. 15-5546 (JMV)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

July 10, 2018

HONORABLE JOHN M. VAZQUEZ

OPINION

VAZQUEZ, District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, Elijah Pittman, has submitted a pro se amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Am. Pet., ECF No. 5.) For the reasons stated herein, the amended petition shall be denied and no certificate of appealability shall issue.

II. BACKGROUND

The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, summarized the facts underlying Petitioner's conviction as follows:¹

According to the State's proofs, at around 7:30 p.m. on August 22, 2006, while still daylight with clear weather, Union Township Police Officer Michael Wittevrongel was monitoring eastbound Route 22 traffic in a marked patrol car parked about ten feet away in a lot perpendicular to the roadway. The officer noticed a Chrysler Fifth Avenue approaching in the left lane with no front license plate, but a New Jersey license plate on the back. Wittevrongel focused solely on this car as it passed by at about forty to forty-five miles per hour, paying particular attention because its driver's side door lock was damaged, indicating that it could have been stolen. At thesame time, Wittevrongel observed a male driver and a female passenger.

Wittevrongel ran the number on the rear license plate and found that it was not registered to that vehicle or any other. As a result, he radioed two other officers in the area, David Roman and Walter Stinner, for assistance. Wittevrongel then pulled out onto Route 22 in pursuit, losing sight of the Chrysler for no more than thirty seconds. He eventually caught up to the Chrysler near the Lowes Shopping Center on Route 22, where he saw his fellow officers pull out from the Lowes' parking lot, in their police cruiser, activate their lights and sirens, and signal for [Petitioner] to stop. Wittevrongel did the same, taking over as the primary unit in pursuit, only losing sight of the vehicle for an instant just before it ultimately crashed a few minutes later. While in pursuit, Officer Stinner also observed that the driver was male and the passenger, female.

With the police vehicles following, the Chrysler accelerated to about seventy miles per hour in the forty-five mile per hour speed zone, "weaving in and out of traffic," driving erratically, and suddenly "pull[ing] from the left lane, clear across the right lane of traffic, and right off the [exit] ramp." By then, the officers had been pursuing the vehicle for approximately 3.3 miles. When Wittevrongel reached the top of the exit ramp, he saw that the Chrysler -- which he lost sight of for only "a fraction of a second" when it shot down the ramp -- had rear-ended another vehicle, a Saturn, at a stop sign at the bottom of the ramp. The impact forced the Saturn all the way across the street and into a parking lot where it collided with a tractor trailer.

The Chrysler had sustained heavy front-end damage and was still smoking and rolling the wrong way down a one-way street as the passenger remained inside while the driver attempted to exit, despite the fact that his door would not open. Wittevrongel, after quickly checking that the driver of the Saturn was all right, used his police cruiser to block the Chrysler from moving any further. Inside that vehicle was [Petitioner], in the driver's seat, along with a passenger, [Petitioner's] cousin Nicole Pittman. [Petitioner], who was the same person Wittevrongel saw in the driver's seat when he first observed the vehicle on Route 22,² was then placed under arrest. Carol McBride, the driver of the Saturn vehicle, sustained injuries to herneck, back, and shoulders that left her, more than a year later, with continuing pain and still unable to drive.

State v. Pittman, No. A-4846-08T4, 2010 WL 2090047, at *1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 26, 2010) (footnote in original).

Petitioner's trial proceedings were conducted before the Honorable Joseph P. Donohue, J.S.C., on September 25 and 26, 2007. (See Sept. 25 and 26, 2007 Trial Trs., ECF Nos. 13-20 and 13-21.) The only individuals who testified at trial were Ms. McBride and Officers Wittevrongel and Stinner; all three testified as State's witnesses. (See Sept. 26, 2007 Trial Tr., ECF No. 13-21.)

On September 26, 2007, the jury found Petitioner guilty of: (i) second-degree eluding, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:29-2b; and (ii) second-degree aggravated assault, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:12-1b(6). Pittman, 2010 WL 2090047, at *1. On July 24, 2008, Judge Donohue sentenced Petitioner "to six years in prison with a two-year period of parole ineligibility [on the eluding conviction and] a consecutive eight-year term with an eighty-five percent parole ineligibility period [on the aggravated assault conviction.]" Id. (See also July 24, 2008 Sentencing Tr., ECF No. 13-22.)

The Appellate Division affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence on direct appeal on May 26, 2010. Pittman, 2010 WL 2090047, at *1. The New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification of Petitioner's direct appeal on October 7, 2010. State v. Pittman, 6 A.3d 441 (N.J. 2010) (table).

On or about November 12, 2010, Petitioner filed an application for post-conviction relief ("PCR") in the Superior Court of New Jersey (hereinafter, the "PCR court"). (See, e.g., Aug. 20, 2012 Statement of Reasons Denying PCR, ECF No. 13-15 at PageID: 449.) Judge Donohue was the PCR court judge. (See, e.g., Aug. 20, 2012 Order Denying PCR, ECF No. 13-15 at PageID:448.) Petitioner argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because, among other things, his trial counsel (1) failed to "investigate damage to the [unmarked police vehicle, 'TAC 3', operated by Officers Roman and Stinner] and [radio] transmission records[;]" (2) did not "consider that there was no plausible factual scenario in which Officer Wittevrongel could have identified [Petitioner;]" and (3) "failed to investigate racial profiling or selective prosecution." (See, e.g., ECF No. 13-15 at PageID: 449.)

On or about February 13, 2012, Petitioner filed a motion in the PCR court requesting, inter alia, the following additional, post-trial discovery:³ (1) "[c]opies of all communications between the police vehicles and headquarters (dispatch/transmissions and [mobile data computer ("MDR") records;]" (ii) "[c]opies of all records related to the damage sustained by [TAC 3], including but not limited to towing and repairs[;]" and (iii) [a]n in camera inspection of the personnel files of the police officers involved in this matter and disclosure to Petitioner of any complaint of racial profiling or selective prosecution." (See Pet'r's Feb. 13, 2012 Notice of Mot., ECF No. 13-15 at PageID: 379-80; accord Pet'r's Mar. 17, 2012 Letter Br., ECF No. 13-15 at PageID: 404-06.) Petitioner claimed that this discovery was needed to substantiate his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. (Id.) The PCR court held a hearing on Petitioner's motion for post-trial discovery on April 20, 2012. (Apr. 20, 2012 Discovery Mot. Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 13-24.) The same day, the PCR court issued an order formally denying the request. (ECF No. 13-11 at PageID: 303.)

Thereafter, on August 10, 2012, the PCR court held a hearing on the merits of Petitioner's PCR application. (Aug. 10, 2012 Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 13-25.) On August 20, 2012, the PCR court entered an order formally denying Petitioner's PCR application. (ECF No. 13-15 at PageID: 448.) The PCR court's denial was based on the reasons it placed on the record on August 10, 2012 (see Aug. 10, 2012 Hr'g Tr. 21-28, ECF No. 13-25), and the additional reasons it detailed in the "Statement of Reasons Denying PCR" appended to the PCR court's April 20th order. (ECF No. 13-15 at PageID: 449-52.)

The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Petitioner's PCR petition on March 9, 2015. State v. Pittman, No. A-1383-12T4, 2014 WL 8086797, at *1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 9, 2015). The New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification of Petitioner's PCR appeal on June 19, 2015. State v. Pittman, 116 A.3d 1071 (N.J. 2015) (table).

Petitioner initiated this § 2254 action on July 14, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner filed his amended petition on August 14, 2015, asserting four grounds for relief. (ECF No. 5.) Respondents submitted their answer on February 29, 2016. (ECF No. 13.) Petitioner filed a reply on March 9, 2016.⁴ (ECF No. 15.)

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Section 2254(a) permits a court to entertain only claims alleging that a person is in state custody "in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Petitioner has the burden of establishing each of his claims. See Eley v. Erickson, 712 F.3d 837, 846 (3d Cir. 2013). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2244 ("AEDPA"), federal courts in habeas corpus cases must give considerable deference to determinations of the state trial and appellate courts. See Renico v. Lett, 599 U.S. 766, 772 (2010).

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) provides as follows:

(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim -

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

Where a state court adjudicated petitioner's federal claim on the merits,⁵ a federal court "has no authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus unless the [state c]ourt's decision 'wascontrary to, or involved an unreasonable...