Lebron-Garcia v. Wetzel

• Decision Date: 10 April 2019
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-1997
• Parties: JOSE ENRIQUE LEBRON-GARCIA Petitioner v. JOHN E. WETZEL, et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

JOSE ENRIQUE LEBRON-GARCIA Petitioner v. JOHN E. WETZEL, et al., Respondents.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-1997

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

April 10, 2019

OPINION

Slomsky, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Petitioner Jose Lebron-Garcia ("Petitioner"), a state prisoner incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution, Forest ("SCI-Forest") in Marienville, Pennsylvania. (Doc. No. 1.) On November 28, 2018, Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending that the Petition be denied and that a certificate of appealability not be issued. (Doc. No. 10.)

On December 5, 2018, Petitioner filed Objections to the R&R through his attorney, Burton A. Rose, Esquire.¹ (Doc. No. 11.) On December 6, 2018, Respondents filed a Response inOpposition to Petitioner's Objections. (Doc. No. 13.) On December 26, 2018, Petitioner filed pro se Objections to the R&R. (Doc. No. 17.) That same day, Petitioner filed a pro se Motion Requesting Leave to Amend Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(2). (Doc. No. 18.)

For reasons stated below, the Court will approve and adopt the R&R (Doc. No. 10), and will deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1). Additionally, the Court will deny Petitioner's Motion Requesting Leave to Amend the Petition (Doc. No. 18).²

II. BACKGROUND

A. Petitioner Jose Lebron-Garcia's State Court Conviction, Guilty Plea Hearing, and Sentencing

On June 17, 2012, police officers from the Lancaster City Bureau of Police were dispatched to a parking garage located at 150 N. Duke Street in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in response to a report of a shooting. See Commonwealth v. Lebron-Garcia, No. 1451 MDA 2016, 2017 WL 471257, at *1 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 20, 2017). Upon arrival, the police blocked the exit ramps of the parking garage. Id. The officers then observed Petitioner Jose Lebron-Garcia fleeing the scene and detained him. Id. Thereafter, police officers found the victim, Pablo Fuentes-Robles, lying on the second floor of the parking garage, bleeding from several gunshot wounds to the torso. Id. Fuentes-Robles was taken to Lancaster General Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Id. Several witnesses at the scene told police officers that they saw Petitioner shoot Fuentes-Robles.³Id. Later that day, Petitioner was charged with criminal homicide. Id. An attorney from the Lancaster Public Defender Office was appointed to represent him. (See Doc. No. 6-2 at 135-36.)

On August 23, 2012, the Commonwealth filed a notice that it intended to seek the death penalty. (Doc. No. 6-1 at 7.) Almost two years later, on August 4, 2014, Petitioner entered into a negotiated plea agreement wherein he agreed to plead guilty to a charge of first-degree murder. In exchange, the Commonwealth agreed to recommend a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, instead of seeking the death penalty. (Doc. No. 6-2 at 6.) At the plea hearing and sentencing, Petitioner was represented by Assistant Public Defender Samuel Encarnacion, Esquire.⁴ Also present at the hearing was a Spanish-language interpreter to translate for Petitioner, who does not speak fluent English. (Id.)

During the plea hearing and sentencing, Petitioner, with the help of the interpreter, participated in an oral Guilty Plea Colloquy with the state trial court.⁵ The attorney for the Commonwealth, Assistant District Attorney ("ADA") Michael D. Fetterman, first set forth the terms of the agreement, and the trial court then asked whether Petitioner understood the nature of the plea deal:

ADA: Your Honor, Count I of the Information is a general charge of criminal homicide. The defendant will be pleading guilty to the specific charge of murder of the first degree pursuant to Section 2502(a) of the Crimes Code.

In exchange for this plea, the Commonwealth is recommending a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, cost of prosecution, mandated DNA sampling and cost thereof. There is restitution due in this matter of $12,749.82. That's the extent of the terms of the plea.

***

Court: Do you understand that you initially had a charge of general criminal homicide?

Interpreter: Yes.

Court: That the Commonwealth filed a notice seeking intent for the death penalty?

Interpreter: Yes.

Court: And the agreement for today is that you are pleading guilty to first degree murder for a sentence of life imprisonment. Do you understand that?

Interpreter. Yes.

Court: Is this your signature on that guilty plea slip?

Interpreter: Yes, Your Honor.

Court: And do you understand that by pleading guilty to a charge of first-degree murder where the death penalty has been removed, the only sentence permissible is life imprisonment? Do you understand that?

Interpreter: Yes.

Court: And that's also shown on the sentencing guideline worksheets, which clearly indicates murder of the first degree only permits a sentence of life imprisonment at this point.

Now with regard to all of the documents that I've already shown you, as well as what's called a Guilty Plea Colloquy and Post-Sentence Rights Form, did you review each of those with your attorney as well as an interpreter?⁶

Interpreter: Yes.

Court: With regard to this guilty plea colloquy, is this your signature along with the attorney's on the seventh page of that document?

Interpreter: Yes, Your Honor.

Court: Did you have a full and complete opportunity to review this with your attorney before you signed it?

Interpreter: Yes, Your Honor.

(Id.)

The trial court then proceeded to ask Petitioner whether he entered into the plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily:

Court: You are clear in your mind as to what you're doing; is that correct?

Interpreter: Yes.

Court: Whose decision is it then to plead guilty to this charge?

Interpreter: Mine.

Court: Have you been forced, threatened or coerced in any way to plead guilty?

Interpreter: No.

Court: Are you pleading guilty of your own free will because, in fact, you did commit this offense?

Interpreter: Yes.

(Id.)

After the guilty plea colloquy, the trial court gave Petitioner a chance to address the court, and also heard from the victim's family members. After the victim's family spoke, ADA Fetterman asked the trial court to accept the parties' negotiated plea agreement:

ADA: . . . This is a just solution. This legislature has seen fit that life in Pennsylvania does mean life, and the family feels justice today and I believe the Commonwealth as a whole feels justice today. . . . So in the interest of justice, we ask the Court to accept this resolution.

Court: Thank you, counsel. I accept the guilty plea of Jose Lebron-Garcia at 4312 of 2012 to the offense of murder in the first degree, that it is knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently presented to the Court.

As it is part of the plea agreement but also the only option, this day and time, August 4th, 2014, I sentence him to incarceration in the state correctional facility for the remainder of his life.

(Id. at 11.)

B. Petitioner's Petition for Collateral Relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA")

Petitioner did not appeal his sentence. Instead, on August 12, 2014, just eight days after entering his guilty plea, Petitioner filed a pro se Motion to Withdraw Plea Under Ineffect[ive] Assistance of Counsel. The pro se filing stated that his attorney, Mr. Encarnacion, pressured him to plead guilty by telling him that "he could not do anything to save him other than take a life sentence without right to parole or get the death penalty, 'cut and dry.'" (Id. at 21.) Upon receipt of the pro se Motion, Mr. Encarnacion arranged to speak with Petitioner over the phone. During that conversation, which took place on August 27, 2014, Mr. Encarnacion advised Petitioner to file a PCRA petition if he sought to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. (Id. at 171.) Further, he advised Petitioner that there was no proper basis to file either a motion to withdraw the guilty plea or a direct appeal of the sentencing to the Superior Court. (Id.)

On June 8, 2015, Petitioner filed a Petition for Reconsideration or Recision of Sentence, Nunc Pro Tunc. (Id. at 26.) On June 15, 2015, the trial court denied the Petition forReconsideration as untimely. (Id. at 31.) On July 20, 2015, Petitioner filed a document with the trial court entitled "Review: Petition for Habeas Corpus and Juris Secundum." (Id. at 33.) The trial court construed this document as a petition for collateral relief under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), and on July 27, 2015, appointed Heather Adams, Esquire, to represent Petitioner on collateral review. (Id. at 39.)

On January 20, 2016, Petitioner, through Ms. Adams, filed an Amended PCRA Petition. (Id. at 42.) In the Amended PCRA Petition, Petitioner claimed that he only pled guilty because his trial counsel, Mr. Encarnacion, told him that he would immediately file an appeal. Accordingly, Petitioner claimed that Mr. Encarnacion was ineffective for "fail[ing] to file a timely motion to withdraw guilty plea, post-sentence motion and notice of appeal after specifically being requested by Defendant to withdraw his plea before the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas and appeal his conviction to the Pennsylvania Superior Court." (Id. at 45.) Additionally, Petitioner asserted that the guilty plea was "involuntary and unlawfully induced because [he] relied on trial counsel's statement that he could not do anything to save him other than take a life sentence or get the death penalty 'cut and dry' . . . ." (Id. at 46.)

On March 29, 2016, the trial court held a hearing on the Amended PCRA Petition. At the hearing, Mr. Encarnacion, who is a native Spanish speaker, testified that he met with Petitioner several times to discuss the merits of the case. (Id. at 99-102.) To that end, Mr. Encarnacion told the trial court that Petitioner was very involved in the case: "[H]e knew the...