Baker v. Horn, CVILL ACTION 96-CV-0037 (E.D. Pa. 5/__/2002)

• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: Anita Brody
• Decision Date: 01 May 2002
• Docket Number: CVILL ACTION 96-CV-0037.
• Citation: Baker v. Horn, CVILL ACTION 96-CV-0037 (E.D. Pa. 5/__/2002) (E.D. Pa. 2002)
• Parties: LEE BAKER v. HORN, et al.

Page 1

LEE BAKER v. HORN, et al.

CVILL ACTION 96-CV-0037.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

May __, 2002.

Billy H. Nolas, Stuart B. Lev, Defender Association of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiff.

Peter J. Gardner, Thomas W. Dolgenos, Donna G. Zucker, David Curtis Glebe, District Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANITA BRODY, District Judge.

On June 25, 1999, Petitioner Lee Baker ("Baker"), a state prisoner convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents include the Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and the Superintendents of the State Correctional Institutions at Graterford and Rockview ("the Commonwealth"). On August 31, 2001, the Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss Baker's petition as untimely under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), or in the alternative, a motion to dismiss all claims in the petition that were procedurally defaulted in state court and, therefore, unreviewable in federal court. For the reasons set forth below, I will deny the motion.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The following is a chronology of the procedural history relevant to the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss¹:

October 4, 1984 Lee Baker was convicted of first degree murder before the
                                                Honorable Alfred F. Sabo in the Court of Common Pleas of
                                                Philadelphia County
                January 30, 1985 Judge Sabo sentenced Baker to death
                February 11, 1985 Baker filed a motion with Judge Sabo to modify his sentence
                                                sentence
                February 14, 1985 Judge Sabo denied the motion to modify Baker's sentence
                                                without a hearing. As he was automatically entitled, Baker
                                                appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
                February 3, 1986 The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County appointed
                                                new counsel to represent Baker
                July 17, 1986 Baker filed a petition with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to
                                                remand the case to the trial court to address claims of ineffective
                                                assistance of trial counsel.
                November 10, 1986 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted Baker's petition to
                                                remand. The case was remanded to Judge Sabo.
                April 10, 1987 Baker filed a "petition pursuant to the Post-Conviction Hearing
                                                Act" ("PCHA petition of 4/10/87") raising claims of ineffective
                                                assistance of counsel.2
                November 18, 1987 After a hearing, Judge Sabo dismissed Baker's PCHA petition
                                                of 4/10/87. Baker again appealed the original judgment of
                                                sentence of death imposed on 1/30/85, and also appealed Judge
                                                Sabo's dismissal of the petition of 4/10/87.
                June 17, 1992 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed both the judgment
                                                of sentence of death and Judge Sabo's dismissal of the petition
                                                of 4/10/87. See Commonwealth v. Baker, 531 Pa. 541,
                                                614 A.2d 663 (Pa. 1992).
                Date Unknown Baker petitioned for reargument.
                March 2, 1993 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Baker's motion for
                                                reargument.
                July 30, 1993 Baker filed a pro-se petition for post-conviction relief under
                                                the Pennsylvania "Post Conviction Relief Act" ("PCRA")3
                                                ("PCRA petition of 7/30/93"). The petition of 7/30/93 was
                                                assigned to the Honorable Joseph Papalini in the Court of
                                                Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.
                August 23, 1993 Judge Papalini dismissed the petition of 7/30/93 without the
                                                appointment of counsel and without conducting a hearing.
                                                Baker appealed.
                December 13, 1993 Judge Papalini filed an opinion in support of his August 23,
                                                1993 dismissal of Baker's PCRA petition of 7/30/93.
                Fall 1994 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court appointed counsel to represent
                                                Baker in the appeal of Judge Papalini's dismissal of
                                                Baker's PCRA petition of 7/30/93.
                May 8, 1995 The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed Judge Papalini's
                                                dismissal of Baker's PCRA petition of 7/30/93 stating that
                                                "the issue raised by Appellant [Baker] was previously litigated
                                                on direct appeal to this court, and, thus, Appellant is ineligible
                                                for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.
                                                §§ 9543(3), 9544(a)(2)." Commonwealth v. Baker, 540 Pa. 131,
                                                656 A.2d 116, 116 (Pa. 1995). Baker petitioned the United
                                                States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
                   October 30, 1995             The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
                   January 3, 1996              Baker filed a motion for appointment of counsel and to proceed
                                                in forma pauperis in federal court. The matter was assigned to
                                                me for adjudication.
                   January 4, 1996              I granted Baker's IFP motion and appointed Billy H. Nolas as
                                                counsel.
                   January 15, 1997 Baker filed a petition in state court entitled "Petition for
                                                Habeas Corpus Relief under Article I, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania
                                                Constitution and for Post-Conviction Relief under
                                                the Post Conviction Relief Act" ("PCRA petition of 1/15/97").
                                                The petition was assigned to Judge Sabo.4
                Prior to March 31, 1997 Baker's counsel, Billy Nolas, submitted to Judge Sabo a proposed
                                                order without an accompanying motion which stated in
                                                part:
                "[T]he PCRA petition herein [petition of 1/15/97], as supplemented,
                                                is dismissed without prejudice due to on-going litigation
                                                in federal court."5
                March 31, 1997 Judge Sabo did not sign Nolas' proposed order but issues his
                                                own order dismissing Baker's petition of 1/15/97 "as premature
                                                due to on-going litigation in federal court." The order
                                                failed to specify whether the dismissal was with or without
                                                prejudice. The order niotified Baker that he had 30 days to
                                                appeal the order.
                April 9, 1997 Baker filed a motion for rehearing of the petition of 1/15/97
                                                based on newly discovered evidence which Baker contended
                                                disclosed a Batson claim.
                   April 23, 1997               Baker filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court
                                                under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("federal petition of 4/23/97").
                April 25, 1997 Baker appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Judge
                                                Sabo's March 31, 1997 dismissal of Baker's PCRA petition of
                                                1/15/97.
                May 7, 1997 Judge Sabo issued an opinion in support of his March 31, 1997
                                                order dismissing Baker's PCRA petition of 1/15/97. It stated
                                                in part:
                "The Petition was initially dismissed at the request of defense
                                                counsel as being premature due to on-going litigation in
                                                federal court . . . Even if this action were not barred by federal
                                                litigation . . . the action would still not meet the requisites for
                                                relief under the Post-Conviction Relief Act. The defendant
                                                himself acknowledges that there have been multiple filings
                                                under the Post Conviction Relief Act in this case. Guided by
                                                governing criteria set forth in Commonwealth v. Lawson,
                                                519 Pa. 504, 549 A.2d 107 (1988) for repetitive filings, the Court
                                                finds that the Defendant has failed to set forth a strong prima
                                                facie case that a miscarriage of justice occurred."
                                                Judge Sabo also denied Baker's April 9, 1997 motion for
                                                rehearing based on the Batson claim.
                May 14, 1997 Baker filed a petition for reconsideration of Judge Sabo's May
                                                7, 1997 opinion. Baker argued that he had not requested
                                                dismissal of his petition and that Judge Sabo had misunderstood
                                                the intention of Baker's counsel in submitting the proposed
                                                order of dismissal.
                June 5, 1997 Baker appealed Judge Sabo's May 7, 1997 opinion to the
                                                Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
                August 28, 1997 In response to Baker's June 5, 1997 appeal, Judge Sabo issued
                                                another opinion in which he stated that he was "without
                                                understanding as to how a party who has already filed an
                                                appeal in an action can file a totally separate appeal from a
                                                denial of reconsideration involving the very same action."

...