Medlen v. Fayette
| Docket Number | Civil Action 2: 19-cv-1442 |
| Decision Date | 08 June 2020 |
| Parties | TRACY MEDLEN, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT SCI FAYETTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Tracy Medlen, a prisoner currently confined at the State Correctional Institution - Fayette, in Labelle, Pennsylvania, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 7). He is challenging the judgment of sentence imposed on him on January 27, 2014, by the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Pennsylvania, at its criminal case at CP-63-CR-0000328-2013. For the reasons outlined below, it is recommended that the Petition be denied and a certificate of appealability should also be denied.
A. Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal habeas statute applicable to prisoners in custody pursuant to a state court judgment. That provision allows a federal court to grant a state prisoner the writ of habeas corpus “on the ground that he or she is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It is Medlen's burden, as petitioner, to prove he is entitled to the writ. Id., see, e.g., Vickers v. Superintendent Graterford SCI, 858 F.3d 841, 848-49 (3d Cir. 2017).
II. Relevant and Procedural Background
1. State Court Proceedings
A jury trial commenced on September 17, 2013, before the Honorable John F. DiSalle. Medlen was represented at trial by the Washington County Office of the Public Defender, Rose A. Semple, Esquire. The Pennsylvania Superior Court, in its Memorandum dated November 19, 2018, affirming the dismissal of Medlen's PCRA petition, recounted the factual background that led to Medlen's arrest and conviction:
On January 17, 2013, Appellant was arrested and charged with various offenses arising from the stabbing of Brandon Sarasnick with a kitchen knife. Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of criminal attempt (homicide), aggravated assault, and recklessly endangering another person. The trial court sentenced Appellant to twenty to forty years' incarceration. A panel of this Court affirmed Appellant's judgment of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Medlen, No. 344 WDA 2014 (Pa. Super. filed Feb. 5, 2016) (unpublished memorandum).
Commonwealth v. Medlen, No. 1552 WDA 2017, 2018 WL 6038560, at *1 (Pa. Super. Nov. 19, 2018) (unpublished memorandum).[1]
Medlen, represented by Attorney Semple, filed a timely Notice of Appeal. On appeal, Medlen presented eight issues for review regarding the admission of certain evidence, alleged prosecutorial misconduct at trial, and alleged error by the trial court in jury instructions and admission of evidence at sentencing. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence by Memorandum filed February 5, 2016. Commonwealth v. Medlen, No. 344 WDA 2014, 2016 WL 490170 (Pa. Super. Feb. 5, 2016) (unpublished memorandum). No further appellate review was sought.
On April 15, 2016, Medlen filed a pro se petition for post-conviction collateral relief under Pennsylvania's Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), in which he raised four issues for review. (Id. at 290-301). The PCRA court appointed, Stephen C. Paul, Esquire, to represent Medlin through his PCRA proceedings. (Id. at 289). On May 17, 2017, Attorney Paul filed a No Merit Letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc), and a Motion to Withdraw. (Id. at 276 -86). The PCRA court granted counsel's motion to withdraw, issued a notice of its intent to dismiss, and ultimately dismissed the petition on September 20, 2017, without a hearing. On October 20, 2017, Medlen filed a timely Notice of Appeal from the PRCA court's order dismissing his PCRA petition. (Id. at 259).
On November 3, 2017, the PCRA court ordered Medlen to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). (Id. at 260). Medlen, acting pro se, then filed a concise statement raising eight issues. (Id. at 249-53). On January 8, 2018, without leave of court, Medlen filed an amended concise statement raising ten issues. (Id. at 24446). The PCRA court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion on June 5, 2018, finding that Medlen was not entitled to relief on any of his claims. (Id. at 213-235).
Medlen, acting pro se, filed a Notice of Appeal and filed his appellant brief on July 3, 2018. (Id. at 136-57). He raised four ineffective assistance of trial claims (Claims 1 - 4); three claims of trial court error (Claims 5 - 7), and two claims of prosecutorial misconduct (Claims 8-9).[2] The Superior Court found that the claims of trial court error (Claims 5-7) were waived as Medlen had failed to raise those issues on direct appeal; that the claims of prosecutorial misconduct (Claims 8 - 9) were waived as Medlen could have raised these claims in his direct appeal, but did not do so; and that three of his ineffective assistance of trial claims (Claims 1-3) were waived because they were not raised in his Rule 1925(b) statement. Commonwealth v. Medlen, 2018 WL 6038560, at *2-3. That left only one issue - Claim 1, trial counsel's alleged failure to object to the trial testimony of Commonwealth witness Rashae Watts - for the Superior Court to review, which it denied on the merits on November 19, 2018. Id. at *4. No further appellate review was taken.
II. Federal Court Proceedings
Having been denied relief in state court, Medlen filed the instant federal habeas petition, in which he raises four issues.[3] (ECF No. 7). Respondents filed an Answer in which they argue that the state courts properly disposed of the issues presented in the PCRA petition and that Medlen has not fully litigated any federal constitutional issues he now raises. (ECF No. 19). Medlen filed a Traverse which is focused on his due process claim. (ECF No. 20). The Court has reviewed the filings of the parties, the electronic copies of the state court record which Respondents provided the Court, including the trial transcript (ECF No. 19-3, 19-4, and 19-5), and the Memorandum Opinions of the Superior Court filed February 5, 2016, and November 19, 2018.[4] The matter is fully briefed and ready for disposition.
C. The Standard for Habeas Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
“The writ of habeas corpus stands as a safeguard against imprisonment of those held in violation of the law.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 91 (2011). Federal courts reviewing habeas corpus petitions “must be vigilant and independent . . . a commitment that entails substantial judicial resources.” Id. This case is governed by the federal habeas statute applicable to state prisoners, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), “which imposes significant procedural and substantive limitations on the scope” of the Court's review. Wilkerson v. Superintendent Fayette SCI, 871 F.3d 221, 227 (3d Cir. 2017). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, federal courts in habeas cases must give considerable deference to determinations of state trial and appellate courts. See Renico v. Lett, 599 U.S. 766, 772 (2010). Various standards must be met before the Court can review the merits of this habeas petition.
Before the Court can address the merits of Medlen's petition, it must first decide whether it was timely filed. Romansky v. Superintendent Green SCI, 933 F.3d 293, 298 (3d Cir. 2019). Pursuant to AEDPA, a state prisoner must file his federal habeas claims within one year of the date his judgment of sentence became final. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Respondents do not contest that the petition was timely filed. (ECF No. 19 at 12).
Because Medlen did not seek direct review from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, his sentence became final for purposes of the one-year PCRA statute of limitations and the one-year federal habeas statute of limitations on March 7, 2016, thirty days after the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) (the one-year federal limitations period generally begins on the date the petitioner's judgment of sentence became final “by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review”); Pa. R. App. P. 1113(a) (). When Medlen filed his PCRA petition on April 15, 2016, the one-year habeas statute was “immediately tolled.” Nelson v. Superintendent of SCI-Retreat, 2019 WL 897296 *2 n.4 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2019). At that point, only thirty-nine days of the limitations period had expired. Medlen's PCRA petition remained pending in the state court system until November 19, 2018, when the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the dismissal of his PCRA petition. Because Medlen did not seek review by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the AEDPA statute of limitations began to run again on December 19, 2018. Medlen had until November 12, 2019, to timely file a federal habeas petition. The instant Petition was filed on October 29, 2019.[5] Thus, the Court agrees that the instant petition was timely filed.
Habeas relief may be afforded to a state prisoner only when his or her custody violates federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1, 6 (2010). The Petition raises three grounds for relief: ineffective assistance of counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial