Atwell v. Lane
Decision Date | 10 July 2017 |
Docket Number | 1:15-cv-1583 |
Parties | JOSEPH WILLIAM ATWELL, Petitioner, v. JAY LANE, ACTING SUPERINTENDENT, PA ATTORNEY GENERAL et al., Respondents. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Hon. John E. Jones III
Petitioner Joseph William Atwell ("Petitioner" or "Atwell"), a prisoner currently confined at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, Pennsylvania, files the instant petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, following affirmance of his convictions for First Degree Murder and Conspiracy, Kidnapping and Conspiracy, and related weapon offenses. For the reasons that follow, the petition for writ of habeas corpus will be denied.
Following a jury trial in the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County, Pennsylvania, Atwell was convicted of First Degree Murder, 18 PA.C.S.A. § 2502(a.), Kidnapping, 18 PA.C.S.A. § 2901(a)(3), two counts of conspiracy, 18 PA.C.S.A. § 903(a)(1), one count of firearms not to be carried without a license, 18 PA.C.S.A. §6106(a)(1), and possessing instruments of crime, 18 PA.C.S.A. § 907(c). (Doc. 23-19, p. 2, n. 1). In a separate bench trial, he was convicted of persons not to possess firearms, 18 PA.C.S.A. § 6015(a)(1). (Id.) On June 24, 2010, he was sentenced to life imprisonment plus an aggregate sentence of not less than 41 years nor more than 104 years. (Doc. 23-19, p. 3).
The Superior Court, in considering Atwell's appeal from his Judgment of Sentence, adopted the following factual and procedural background set forth in the trial court's opinion:
(Doc. 23-19, pp. 2-3). Atwell sought review of the following issues in his direct appeal to the Superior Court:
(Doc. 23-16, pp. 36, 37). The Superior Court affirmed Atwell's Judgment of Sentence on September 13, 2011. (Doc. 23-19).
Thereafter, he filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal seeking review of only a few of the issues he initially raised. He questioned "[w]hether the Pennsylvania Superior Court erred by upholding the conviction of the Petitioner for murder in the first degree, and various lesser charges, where such conviction occurred during a joint trial with a co-defendant, which trial should have been severed both as a result of prejudice during trial and potential prejudice during the penalty phase of the proceedings[,]" and asserted that "[t]he Pennsylvania Superior Court erred by upholding the conviction of the Petitioner for murder in the first degree, and various lesser charges, where such conviction was based on theadmission of numerous items of prejudicial evidence." (Doc. 23-20, pp. 7, 10, 15). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the Petition for Allowance of Appeal on February 1, 2012. (Doc. 23-21).
Atwell timely filed a Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA") petition pursuant to 42 PA.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. Appointed counsel twice amended the petition. (Doc. 23-26, p. 2). The second amended petition contained four claims alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Claims one and two concerned trial counsels' advice on plea offers. (Id.) The third issue raised trial counsels' failure to object to the introduction into evidence of a "White Resistance Manual." (Id.) The final issue pertained to trial counsels' failure to call Echevarria's treating psychiatrist to challenge her competency and credibility. (Id.) Following a full hearing, the PCRA court denied the petition on March 14, 2014. (Doc. 23-26). Atwell appealed, raising the identical issues he raised in the PCRA court. (Doc. 23-27, p. 19). On February 13, 2015, the Superior Court affirmed on the basis of the PCRA court's opinion. (Doc. 23-29). He sought review of the identical ineffective assistance of counsel claims in his Petition for Allowance of Appeal. (Doc. 23-30, pp. 10, 11). The Supreme Court denied the petition on August 12, 2015. (Doc. 23-31).
Thereafter, Atwell pursued relief in federal court.
The instant petition for federal habeas relief was filed on August 13, 2015. (Doc. 1). Atwell seeks relief on the following grounds:
A habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the proper mechanism for a prisoner to challenge the "fact or duration" of his confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498-99 (1973). Petitioner's case is governed by the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial