McCollister v. Cameron, 12-1475
Decision Date | 15 August 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 12-1475,12-1475 |
Parties | ERIC C. MCCOLLISTER, Appellant v. SUPERINTENDENT CAMERON; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY; and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
May 30, 2013
Before: JORDAN, VANASKIE AND COWEN, Circuit Judges
Eric C. McCollister appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus submitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We granted a certificate of appealability on theissue of whether McCollister's waiver of counsel was made knowingly and intelligently in light of the fact that, during the waiver colloquy, he was advised that his sentencing range was 40 to 80 years' imprisonment, with no mandatory minimum prison term, when in fact he faced a mandatory minimum prison term of 25 years and a maximum term of life imprisonment under Pennsylvania's "three strikes" law, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9714. Because the state court's rejection of McCollister's challenge to the adequacy of the waiver of counsel colloquy was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, we will affirm the District Court's denial of McCollister's habeas petition.
We write primarily for the parties, who are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case. Accordingly, we set forth only those facts necessary to our analysis.
McCollister was charged with burglary, criminal trespass, robbery, aggravated assault, and recklessly endangering another person arising out of a home invasion and assault in July of 2006. Dissatisfied with representation provided by four separate attorneys, McCollister requested that he be allowed to represent himself at trial, with appointed counsel acting in a standby capacity. Following a lengthy and comprehensive colloquy, during which McCollister was informed that his sentencing exposure was 40 to 80 years in prison with no mandatory minimum prison term, the trial court accepted the waiver of counsel as "knowing, intelligent and voluntary." (App. 64.)
On May 2, 2008, McCollister was convicted by a jury on all counts. It was not until four months after the jury returned its verdict, however, that the Commonwealthfiled a Notice of Intent to Seek Twenty-Five Year Mandatory Sentence due to Conviction of Third Violent Crime Offense. McCollister's two prior qualifying offenses included burglary of a residence in 1987, and burglary of a residence in 1989.1 McCollister was sentenced to an aggregate term of 40 years to life imprisonment, including a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9714 (a)(2). McCollister filed a timely direct appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
On direct appeal, McCollister, among other things, asserted that the waiver of counsel colloquy was inadequate because it did not accurately apprise him of the sentencing range he faced, including the fact that there would be a mandatory minimum prison term of 25 years. The Superior Court rejected this assertion, explaining:
(Commonwealth v. McCollister, No. 1401 EDA 2009, pp. 14, 20-22 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 30, 2010) (Memorandum)).
On January 25, 2011, McCollister filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Among the issues presented in the habeas petition was that he was denied his right to counsel because the plea colloquy did not accurately set forth the sentencing range to which he was exposed, including the 25 year mandatory minimum prison term under Pennsylvania's three strikes rule. The Magistrate Judge to whom the § 2254 petition was referred recommended denial of relief on this claim, observing that the state court's finding that the waiver colloquy was adequate "is neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, United States Supreme Court precedent." (October 18, 2011 Report and Recommendation at 31.) The District Court overruled McCollister's objections to the Report and Recommendation and denied the habeas petition. This appeal followed.
On August 27, 2012, we granted McCollister's request for a certificate of appealability solely on the issue of whether his waiver of right to trial counsel was made knowingly and intelligently. We also appointed counsel to represent McCollister on appeal.2
The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) and § 2254(a). We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and § 2253(c)(1).
Where, as here, a state court has decided the merits of a petitioner's habeas claim, relief in federal court may be granted only if the state court's adjudication of the claim:
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2). In this case, the facts are not in dispute, and McCollister does not contend that the state court's determination of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel claim was contrary to a precedent of the Supreme...
To continue reading
Request your trial