Baker v. Horn
| Decision Date | 15 August 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ.A. 96-0037.,Civ.A. 96-0037. |
| Citation | 383 F.Supp.2d 720 |
| Parties | Lee BAKER, Petitioner, v. Martin HORN, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Billy H. Nolas, Stuart B. Lev, Defender Association of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
David Curtis Glebe, Donna G. Zucker, Peter J. Gardner, Thomas W. Dolgenos, District Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for Respondents.
CONTENTS
I. Introduction .................................................................725
II. Factual Background ...........................................................725
III. Review of Baker v. Horn, 210 F.Supp.2d 592 (E.D.Pa.2002) .....................726
A. Procedural History .......................................................726
B. Application of AEDPA .....................................................736
C. AEDPA Timeliness .........................................................737
1. Background ...........................................................737
2. Statutory Tolling ....................................................738
3. Equitable Tolling ....................................................743
D. Exhaustion ...............................................................749
E. Procedural Default .......................................................750
1. Procedural History of PCRA Petition of 1/15/97 .......................750
2. Actual Violation of Procedural Rules Relating to PCRA Withdrawal......753
3. Consistent Application of Rules Relating to PCRA Withdrawal ..........754
4. Pennsylvania's "Relaxed Waiver" Doctrine .............................757
IV. Standard of Review ...........................................................758
V. Accomplice Liability Instructions ............................................760
A. Introduction .............................................................760
B. Direct Due Process Challenge to Jury Instructions ........................761
1. Federal Due Process Requirements .....................................761
2. Pennsylvania Law of First Degree Murder and Accomplice Liability .....762
3. Baker's Jury Instructions ............................................763
4. Reasonable Likelihood Analysis .......................................764
5. Harmless Error Analysis ..............................................771
C. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ........................................777
1. Deficient Performance ................................................777
2. Prejudice ............................................................778
XII. Conclusion ....................................................................780
ORDER...............................................................................780
Herbert1 Baker Jr. ("Baker") petitions this court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the following reasons, Baker's petition is granted in part.
The following facts are taken from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision on Baker's direct appeal, Commonwealth v. Baker, 531 Pa. 541, 614 A.2d 663, 665 (1993) ("Commonwealth v. Baker II").2 A Pennsylvania jury convicted Baker and co-defendants Eric Joseph ("Joseph") and Mark Mitchell ("Mitchell") of first degree murder, robbery, criminal conspiracy, and possession of an instrument of crime for their roles in the armed robbery of the Metro Oil Company ("Metro Oil") and the murder of its owner, William Gambrell ("Gambrell"). Evidence presented at trial showed that Baker and his co-defendants, upon entering the premises of Metro Oil, seized two employees, Adrian Crosby ("Crosby") and Thomas Dolan ("Dolan"). Baker and Joseph directed Dolan at gunpoint to lead them to a second floor room to open the company safe. The men arrived to find Gambrell sitting in his second-floor office. The Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Baker then shot Gambrell twice. However, Baker, in a statement presented at trial, stated that Joseph had fired over Baker's shoulder. Gambrell died from the gunshot wounds. Unable to open the safe, the three defendants fled with weapons and money they found on the premises. A bullet taken from the victim's body was identified as a .38 caliber, but the weapon used in the crime was never recovered. The jury returned their verdicts of guilt on all charges and as to all defendants on October 4, 1984. Following a penalty hearing, the jury sentenced Baker to death and sentenced Mitchell and Joseph to life imprisonment.
Baker's case rests before me following a unique and complicated procedural history. I recounted that history in great detail in an earlier opinion denying the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss Baker's petition as untimely or in the alternative to dismiss certain claims as procedurally defaulted. Baker v. Horn, 210 F.Supp.2d 592 (E.D.Pa.2002) ("Baker v. Horn III"). I reproduce with additions the procedural chronology included within that opinion here:3
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitepipe v. Weber
...and the "higher standard of extraordinary circumstances, necessary for equitable tolling in capital cases." See Baker v. Horn, 383 F.Supp.2d 720, 747 (E.D.Pa.2005). There is also a split of authority among federal courts on whether ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel qualifies......
-
Tyson v. Smith
...instructions denied him his right to a fair trial as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment and cites to the case of Baker v. Horn, 383 F. Supp. 2d 720, 771 (2005). (Doc. 12-9, pp. 5, 23; Doc. 45-6, p. 2). And, in considering the PCRA appeal, the Superior Court discussed the jury instruc......
-
Wharton v. Vaughn
...petitioner: (1) has been diligent in asserting his claims; and (2) rigid application of the statute would be unfair. Baker v. Horn, 383 F.Supp.2d 720, 744-45 (E.D.Pa. 2005) (citing Fahy v. Horn, 240 F.3d 239, 244 (3d Cir. 2001)). B. Exhaustion of State Remedies; Procedural Default Under AED......
-
Richardson v. Newland
...when he filed a second state habeas petition which was later deemed to be untimely and therefore not properly filed); Baker v. Horn 383 F. Supp.2d 720, 748 (E.D. Pa. 2005) ("Baker too cannot claim that the uncertainty of Pennsylvania law amounted to an extraordinary circumstance preventing ......