Bable v. Corbin
| Decision Date | 04 October 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 11-145 |
| Parties | JOSEPH L. BABLE, Petitioner, v. DEPUTY B. CORBIN and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Joseph L. Bable ("Petitioner"), a state prisoner incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, has petitioned this Court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons that follow, the Petition will be denied.
On March 12, 2003, Petitioner burglarized a residence in Prospect, Pennsylvania in search of items that he could trade for crack cocaine. The crime escalated into a robbery after the homeowner came home for lunch and discovered Petitioner in his driveway. The homeowner, upon realizing that a crime was in progress, took the keys from Petitioner's car and parked his truck behind it to prevent Petitioner's escape. Petitioner, upon discovering this situation, threatened the victim with a loaded .40 caliber Ruger pistol he had already stolen from the residence and demanded the return of his keys and the movement of the homeowner's truck. The incident then devolved into a high speed chase, as the homeowner and then numerous policeofficers pursued Petitioner. During the course of this chase, Petitioner fired several gunshots from the aforementioned stolen handgun at the pursuing officers. One of these shots penetrated the windshield of a police cruiser, missing the driver only because the officer had seen Petitioner aiming at him and ducked. At the conclusion of the chase Petitioner was taken into custody by the pursuing officers and charged with multiple offenses. Before trial in Pennsylvania, Petitioner was extradited to Ohio to be resentenced for a probation violation in that state. Eventually, although still serving an Ohio sentence, Petitioner was returned to Butler County, Pennsylvania to face the charges filed against him there.
After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of Robbery, Burglary, Criminal Attempt-Homicide, Theft by Unlawful Taking, Receiving Stolen Property, Terroristic Threats, Simple Assault, Aggravated Assault, Recklessly Endangering Another Person, and Fleeing or Attempting to Elude Police. See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3701(a)(1)(ii), 3502(a), 901(a), 3921(a), 3925(a), 2706, 2701(a)(3), 2702(a)(2)(d), 2705; 75 Pa.C.S. § 3733 (respectively). On September 22, 2004, he was sentenced to eight to sixteen years in prison for the robbery conviction and a consecutive ten to twenty years for attempted homicide, as well as to two concurrent forty to eighty month sentences for burglary and theft by unlawful taking, a concurrent twenty-one to forty-two months for terroristic threats, and a concurrent term of twelve to twenty-four months for fleeing/attempting to allude police. This total sentence of eighteen to thirty-six years was ordered to run consecutively to any other sentence he was serving.
Petitioner filed a direct appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, alleging that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss his case due to a violation of Rule 600 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure (speedy trial violation), erred in denying his motion to suppress without a hearing, and erred in the manner in which it conducted voir dire. (Opinion of the PennsylvaniaSuperior Court, ECF No. 14-21 at pp.14-21). The Superior Court denied relief and affirmed in a Memorandum Opinion dated April 5, 2006. Id. Petitioner then filed a petition for allowance of appeal wherein he claimed that the trial court had erred by denying his request to hold individual voir dire in a separate room with him present. (Petition for Allowance of Appeal, ECF No. 14-21 at pp.24-25). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his petition by order dated October 24, 2006. (Order denying Petition for Allowance of Appeal, ECF No. 14-21 at p.33).
On October 14, 2007, Petitioner filed a timely pro se petition pursuant to Pennsylvania's Post-Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). (PCRA Petition, ECF No. 14-21 at pp.35-39; No. 14-22; No. 14-23; No. 14-24; No. 14-25; No. 14-26; No. 14-27 at pp.1-3). Counsel was appointed to represent him. After reviewing the case, counsel filed a no-merit letter on February 11, 2008, stating that Petitioner's claims were devoid of merit and requesting permission to withdraw. (No merit letter, ECF No. 14-27 at pp.5-9) On July 14, 2008, the PCRA court permitted counsel to withdraw and announced its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing. (Memorandum Opinion and Order, ECF No. 14-27 at 12-13, No. 14-28 at 1-5). The PCRA court dismissed the PCRA petition on August 5, 2008. (Order dismissing PCRA petition, ECF No. 14-28 at p.7). In response, Petitioner filed a "Motion to Object to Dismissal of Post Conviction Relief Petition without Hearing" and a "Petition to Reconsider Dismissal of Post Conviction Relief Nunc Pro Tunc" setting forth his explanation for late filing of his response to the proposed dismissal of his PCRA petition. (Order, ECF No. 14-28 at pp.9-13; No. 14-29; No. 14-20 at pp.1-6). After reviewing the filings, the PCRA court declined to reverse its dismissal of the petition. Id.
Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal. The PCRA court then ordered Petitioner to file a Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, which he filed on September 14, 2008. (Concise Statement of MattersComplained of on Appeal, ECF No. 14-30 at pp.8-14). Petitioner raised 43 claims of error in his Statement, and in its Opinion, the PCRA court addressed only those allegations relating to the dismissal of the PCRA petition without an evidentiary hearing. (Memorandum Opinion and Order Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), ECF No. 14-30 at pp.16-18). Petitioner filed a voluminous appellate brief (Brief for appellant, ECF No. 14-30 at pp.20-39; No. 14-31; No. 14-32; No. 14-33; No. 14-34 at pp.1-32), and in a Memorandum Opinion dated April 7, 2010, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the dismissal of the PCRA petition (Memorandum Opinion, ECF No. 14-35 at pp.23-38). Petitioner filed a petition for allowance of appeal (Petition for Allowance of Appeal, ECF No. 14-36 at pp.7-37), which was denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on December 10, 2010 (Order denying Petition for Allowance of Appeal, ECF No. 14-37 at p.6).
The instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed on February 14, 2011. (ECF No. 3). Petitioner asserts the following four grounds for relief:
Id. The Response to the Petition was filed on April 15, 23011. (ECF No. 12).
This case is governed by the federal habeas statute applicable to state prisoners, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L.No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, April 24, 1996 ("AEDPA"). Under this statute, habeas relief is only available on the grounds that Petitioner's judgment of sentence was obtained in violation of his federal constitutional rights. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Errors of state law are not cognizable. See, e.g., Priester v. Vaughn, 382 F.3d 394, 402 (3d Cir. 2004) () (quoting Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991)). See also Real v. Shannon, 600 F.3d 302, 309-10 (3d Cir. 2010).
AEDPA "modified a federal habeas court's role in reviewing state prisoner applications in order to prevent federal habeas 'retrials' and to ensure that state-court convictions are given effect to the extent possible under law." Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 687, 693 (2002). It "requires federal courts collaterally reviewing state proceedings to afford considerable deference to state courts' legal and factual determinations." Lambert v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 210, 234 (3d Cir. 2004). As codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), AEDPA provides:
(Emphasis added).
Importantly, regardless of whether a state court has adjudicated a claim on the merits so as to invoke review under the standard set forth in § 2254(d), a federal habeas court must presume that all of the state court's factual findings are correct unless the presumption is rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., Palmer v. Hendricks, 592 F.3d 386, 392 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)). See also Weeks v. Snyder, 219 F.3d 245, 259 (3d Cir. 2000) (); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 339-41 (2003).
The provisions of the federal habeas corpus statute at 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)...
To continue reading
Request your trial