The trial court summarized the underlying facts of Petitioner's state court conviction as follows:
On the night of February 4, 2001, [Petitioner] and three of his friends went together to a private club in West Philadelphia, [the "Wheels of Soul."] The club was run by members of a motorcycle club, and it was licensed to sell alcohol to its members and their guests. Charlie Wilson was the "doorman" serving in a security position on that night and he searched the four [men] before he let them into the club. Mr. Wilson testified that two of the males were arguing with each other as they entered the club.
[Mr. Wilson] warned the two [males] about causing a disturbance in the club as he was completing his search of them. While he was finishing his search of one of the men who was arguing, the other one threw a punch. Mr. Wilson grabbed one of the men and wrestled him to the ground while other club members subdued the man who had tried to punch his friend. The deceased in this case, Jerome Robinson, was one of the other club members who came to Mr. Wilson's aid. After the disturbance quelled, all four . . . men who had come to the club together were put out of the club. Though he was not one of the two who were arguing and scuffling as they entered the club, [Petitioner] did have words with Mr. Wilson on his way out and told him to "check" his pockets to "make sure you got your money."
Later that night[,] in the early hours of February 5, 2003, Mr. Wilson was still in his position as the doorman [] handling security for the club. A female knocked on the door, and [Robinson] opened it and let her in. [Petitioner] was identified at trial as the person who followed [the female] through the club door, and fired one shot with a handgun that struck [Robinson] in the abdomen. That gunshot proved to be fatal, as it severed major arteries that caused [Robinson] to bleed internally. Mr. Wilson found a handgun in the club, and he ran outside after [Petitioner] who had immediately fled after he shot [Robinson]. [Mr. Wilson] saw him running down a small street adjacent to the club, and he yelled at him to stop. [Petitioner] turned around and fired a shot at him, and Mr. Wilson responded by firing his handgun at [Petitioner.] They exchanged two more shots, and Mr. Wilson returned to the club after his handgun "blew up" in his hand.
Shortly after [Robinson] was shot, Officer Robert Wuller was in a marked patrol vehicle a few blocks from the private club when he and his partner arrested Ralph Burnett [for selling narcotics.]. . . Officer Wuller began questioning Burnett, and he observed an injury to his face. . . Officer Wuller suspected that he was one of the four males who had been at [the Wheels of Soul] just before the decedent was shot and killed . . . [Burnett] was transferred to the [homicide division's] custody and questioned[.] [Burnett] gave a written statement to the homicide detectives in which he described in detail what had happened in the club when the four of them were ejected. In that statement, Burnett told the detectives that after they drove away from the club, [Petitioner] told him "he was going to get his hammer." [Burnett] also said in his statement that while [Petitioner] was being put out of the club, he told the members "that he would be back."
At the conclusion of the homicide investigation, an arrest warrant was issued for [Petitioner]. [On February 6, 2003, when the police were at his residence, [Petitioner] attempted to escape by climbing out of a second floor window and hiding on the roof. The police eventually arrested [Petitioner] on that same date and took him into custody.] [The Commonwealth] charged [Petitioner] with the murder of Jerome Robinson, aggravated assault for shooting at Charlie Wilson, and numerous related offenses.
(Doc. No. 19 at 1-2 (internal citations omitted).)
On April 19, 2006, a jury convicted Petitioner of first-degree murder, aggravated assault, and carrying a firearm without a license. (Id. at 1.) On July 12, 2006, Petitioner was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. (Id.; Doc. No. 1 at 4.) Petitioner timely appealed his conviction and sentence to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Superior Court cited Petitioner's claims as follows:
1. Was it [an] error for the [trial] court to permit the prosecutor to cross-examine [Petitioner's] primary defense witness with respect to her treatment "for any mental illness, disease, or disorder";
2. Was it [an] error for the [trial] court to permit the prosecutor to ask an assigned detective whether he had conducted an investigation "to determine whether or not" an alternative suspect was involved in the instant homicide;
3. Was it [an] error for the [trial] court to permit the prosecutor to ask questions suggesting that a recanting witness had been improperly pressured;
4. Was it [an] error for the [trial] court to overrule [Petitioner's] objections to the Commonwealth's closing statement;
5. Was it [an] error for the [trial] court to permit the jury to view a photo which had been taken by a police officer nearly two years after the incident; and
6. Was it [an] error for the [trial] court to permit the deliberating jury to review the written statements of a recanting witness?
(Doc. No. 19 at 3 (internal citation omitted).) On December 21, 2007, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court's judgment of sentence. (Id.) On June 4, 2008, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied a petition for allowance of appeal. (Id.)
On April 29, 2009, Petitioner filed a timely pro se petition for post-conviction relief in state court, pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa. Const. Stat. Ann. § 9541, et seq. (Id.) Counsel was appointed and on July 22, 2010, counsel filed a no merit letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988), along with a motion to withdraw.2 (Id.) On September 17, 2010 Terri Himebaugh, Esquire, entered his appearance on behalf of Petitioner and filed a motion for time to investigate potential claims and file an amended PCRA petition. (Id.) On November 10, 2010, counsel filed an amended PCRA petition, along with a supporting memorandum of law. (Id. at 3-4.) On May 4, 2012, the PCRA court dismissed the petition.
Next, Petitioner appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, arguing that the PCRA court had not considered Petitioner's memorandum of law when ruling that Petitioner's issues were insufficiently supported by facts and legal arguments. (Id. at 4.) On February 1, 2013, the Superior Court remanded the case to the PCRA court with instructions to reconsider the petition with the supporting arguments offered in the memorandum of law. (Id. (internal citation omitted).) On October 1, 2013, the PCRA court again dismissed the PCRA petition. (Id.) On October 18, 2013, Petitioner appealed to the Superior Court. (Id.) On June 19, 2014, the Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court's dismissal of the PCRA petition. (Id.)
On August 27, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas corpus petition in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising the following claims:
1. Ineffective assistance of trial counsel in that trial counsel had a conflict of interest which should have precluded counsel from representing Petitioner and which prejudicially impacted Petitioner's ability to present a defense;
2. Ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate potential alibi witnesses, give timely notice of an alibi defense, call the alibi witnesses at trial and present corroborating evidence;
3. Ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to obtain latent fingerprint reports;
4. Petitioner was denied his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law and his rights pursuant to Brady v. Maryland in that the prosecution failed to disclose to the defense the existence of a police statement taken from Tyriek Newell, and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to investigate the existence of said police statement, to obtain it and/or raise and preserve this claim on direct appeal;
5. Ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call several witnesses;
6. Petitioner was denied his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments when the trial court permitted the prosecutor to question recanting witness [Ralph] Burnett suggesting without any evidentiary basis for doing so, that Burnett had been pressured by others to repudiate his post-arrest accusations;
7. Petitioner was denied his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments when the trial court overruled petitioner's objections to the Commonwealth's closing statement;
8. Petitioner was denied his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments when the trial court permitted the prosecution to impeach a defense witness with respect to her mental health history and treatment; and
9. Petitioner was denied his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments when the trial court permitted the prosecutor and detective to impermissibly bolster the prestige of the police witness.
(Doc. No. 19 at 5; see also Doc. No. 1.)
On February 28, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a R&R in which she recommended denying the Petition for...
