Rosario-Torres v. Lane
Decision Date | 01 November 2019 |
Docket Number | Civil No. 3:16-cv-1891 |
Parties | JESUS ROSARIO-TORRES, Petitioner v. SUPERINTENDENT JAY LANE, et al., Respondents |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(Judge Mariani)
Petitioner Jesus Rosario-Torres ("Rosario-Torres"), filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a judgment and conviction imposed in the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the petition.
The Superior Court, in considering Rosario-Torres' appeal from his judgment of sentence, adopted the following factual and procedural background set forth in the trial court's opinion:
(Doc. 9-27, pp. 2-3, Commonwealth v. Torres, No 2281 EDA 2010 (Pa. Super. Sept. 13, 2011)). On direct appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, Rosario-Torres sought reviewof the following issues:
(Doc. 9-25). On September 13, 2011, the Superior Court affirmed Rosario-Torres' judgment of sentence. (Doc. 9-27).
Rosario-Torres filed a petition for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on October 12, 2011. (Doc. 9-28). On February 1, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an order denying the petition. (Doc. 9-29). Rosario-Torres did notfile a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
Rosario-Torres filed a timely petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 PA. C.S. §§ 9541-9546. (Doc. 9-30). Counsel was appointed for Rosario-Torres, who subsequently filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. (Doc. 9-31). The PCRA court granted PCRA counsel's motion to withdraw, and notified Rosario-Torres of the court's intention to dismiss his PCRA petition. (Doc. 9-32). Rosario-Torres then filed an amended PCRA petition, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. (Doc. 9-33). Specifically, Rosario-Torres claimed that trial counsel advised him not to testify, thereby depriving him of his right to testify and his right to a coherent trial strategy. (Id.). Rosario-Torres further averred that the trial court erred by failing to colloquy him to determine whether his waiver of the right to testify was knowing and voluntary. (Id.). On March 25, 2013, a hearing was held on the amended PCRA petition. (Doc. 9-34). The PCRA court denied the petition and Rosario-Torres filed a timely appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. (Docs. 9-35, 9-37). On December 4, 2013, the Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court's decision. (Doc. 9-38). Rosario-Torres then filed a petition for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. (Doc. 9-39). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard the appeal and ultimately remanded the case back to the PCRA court with the direction to appoint PCRA counsel for a limited evidentiary hearing. (Doc. 9-40). The PCRA court appointed counsel and held an evidentiary hearing on March 3, 2015. (Doc. 9-41). On March 9, 2015,following the hearing, the PCRA court issued an order denying the amended PCRA petition. (Doc. 9-42).
Rosario-Torres filed a pro se notice of appeal from the March 9, 2015 order. (Doc. 9-43). Counsel for Rosario-Torres subsequently filed a petition to withdraw as counsel, and an accompanying Turner/Finley1 no-merit brief. (See Doc. 9-45, p. 1). On appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, Rosario-Torres raised the following issues:
(Doc. 9-43). On May 4, 2016, the Superior Court granted counsel's petition to withdraw and affirmed the PCRA court's opinion. (Doc. 9-45; Commonwealth v. Torres, 2016 WL 2352826 (Pa. Super. May 4, 2016)).
Rosario-Torres then filed the instant petition for federal habeas relief.
Rosario-Torres sets forth the following ten grounds for relief in the federal habeaspetition:
To continue reading
Request your trial