729 F.3d 278 (3rd Cir. 2013), 12-4027, Keitel v. Mazurkiewicz
|Citation:||729 F.3d 278|
|Opinion Judge:||CHAGARES, Circuit Judge.|
|Party Name:||WILLIAM A. KEITEL, Appellant v. JOSEPH MAZURKIEWICZ; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA|
|Attorney:||Chris R. Eyster, Esq., Pittsburgh, PA, Attorney for Appellant. Ronald M. Wabby, Jr., Esq., Office of the District Attorney, Pittsburgh, PA, Attorney for Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||August 30, 2013|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. (No. 2-11-cv-01209). District Judge: Hon. Nora B. Fischer.
Appellant William Keitel was convicted in late 1998 by a jury in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of first degree murder, third degree murder, aggravated assault, and five counts of recklessly endangering another person. Keitel's aggregate sentence was life imprisonment plus thirty-five to seventy years of imprisonment. Keitel unsuccessfully appealed his convictions and sentence. His efforts to seek relief under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act were similarly unsuccessful.
Keitel filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in September 2011. The District Court denied the petition and Keitel timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1291 and 2253.
The case has been fully briefed by the parties and is listed to be heard by the Court on September 26, 2013. However, the parties notified the Court that Keitel died on August 11, 2013. The appellees now contend that Keitel's case is moot and should be dismissed. In response, Keitel's attorney of record has advised the Court that Keitel's parents, his " next of kin," desire " to continue the appeal to clear their son's name."
Article III of the Constitution limits the federal courts to adjudication of actual, ongoing " [c]ases" and " [c]ontroversies." U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. The " case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate."
Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990). " Courts enforce the case-or-controversy requirement through several justiciability doctrines," which " include standing...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP