Baker v. Horn, CVILL ACTION 96-CV-0037 (E.D. Pa. 5/__/2002)
| Decision Date | 01 May 2002 |
| Docket Number | CVILL ACTION 96-CV-0037. |
| Parties | LEE BAKER v. HORN, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
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
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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.
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."
...To continue reading
Request your trial