Chase v. Supt., State Corr. Inst. at Albion
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Writing for the Court | Martin C. Carlson, United States Magistrate Judge |
| Decision Date | 29 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL 4:18-CV-101 |
| Parties | LEONARD CHASE, JR., Petitioner, v. SUPT., STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT ALBION, et al. Respondents. |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This case began with the armed robbery of a Wine and Spirits store in East York. On April 24, 2010, two men entered the Wine and Spirits store, faces covered with bandannas and guns drawn instructing the people present in the store to “fuckin hit the ground.” Thereafter, the two men approached numerous employees and stole money from the cash register and a safe in the store's office. An eyewitness saw the two men exit the store and approach a vehicle that was parked behind the store. He then saw the same vehicle and began following it while on the phone with the 9-1-1 operator, providing details on where the car was located. Officers with Springettsbury Township Police Department located the vehicle, which “took off, ” at which point the officers engaged in a pursuit. When the car spun out of control and stopped, officers located the petitioner, Leonard Chase, in the driver's seat, his co-defendant Travis Bryant in the passenger seat, and a third individual, Troy Thomas, in the back seat.
Chase and Bryant were searched, and over $600 in cash was recovered, some of which was still in coin wrappers. Chase was charged with robbery and criminal conspiracy. In April of 2011, a jury found Chase guilty of five counts of robbery and one count of criminal conspiracy to commit robbery. On June 27, 2011, the trial court sentenced Chase to seven to 14 years' imprisonment on each of the robbery charges, to run consecutive, and six to 12 years' imprisonment on the conspiracy charge, to run concurrent with the robbery. This resulting in an aggregate sentence of 35 to 70 years' imprisonment.
The evidence connecting Chase to the robbery was clear and compelling. While no eyewitnesses directly linked Chase to the crime, when the high-speed pursuit ended, Chase was pulled from the driver's seat of the vehicle wearing a tan or sand-colored hooded sweatshirt similar to the attire of one of the robbers. A total of $312.56, some of which was in coin wrappers, was found on his person. His codefendant, Thomas, was removed from the passenger seat and had $326 on his person and $42.50 in a black coat with a fur hood that was on the passenger seat. Some of the money in the coat was also in coin wrappers.
The money recovered from Chase and Thomas was within two dollars of the amount reported stolen from the Wine and Spirits store. Two bandanas were recovered in the vehicle, one of which had Chase's DNA on it, the other of which had Thomas' DNA on it. Their outfits also matched the descriptions of the robbers from the employees and customers in the store at the time and two handguns were also recovered from the vehicle-one on the driver's seat where Chase was sitting and one in the center console area between the driver and passenger seats.
Due to the fact that Chase was charged with several individual counts of robbery as they applied to different employees and customers in the store at the time the robbery occurred, the jury was specially instructed on the robbery counts. Instructed in this fashion the jury convicted Chase of these separate counts.
Chase now challenges his state convictions, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction on all five robbery counts; challenging the special jury instruction; arguing that the search of the vehicle was unreasonable and unconstitutional; challenging the trial judge's application of the deadly weapon enhancement; challenging the computation of his prior record score and the deadly weapon enhancement; arguing that he was improperly convicted on all five counts of robbery stemming from one act of theft; arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective in numerous ways; arguing that the trial court improperly interpreted the robbery statute, turning the robbery of one store into five; and alleging prosecutorial misconduct because the Commonwealth allowed an office to testify in contradiction with the police reports. However, we find these arguments to be without merit, and for the following reasons, we recommend that this petition for habeas corpus be denied.
The factual background of the instant petition was aptly summarized by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in its decision denying Chase's direct appeal:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting