Smith v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 14 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | Re ECF 16,Civil Action 21-276 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Parties | ERIC WAYNE SMITH, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, and SUPERINTENDENT MELINDA ADAMS, Respondents. |
ERIC WAYNE SMITH, Petitioner,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, and SUPERINTENDENT MELINDA ADAMS, Respondents.
Civil Action No. 21-276
Re ECF No. 16
United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
December 14, 2021
Hon. Arthur J. Schwab, United States District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MAUREEN P. KELLY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Respondent District Attorney of Washington County's Motion to Dismiss Habeas Corpus Petition (“Motion to Dismiss”), ECF No. 16, be granted, and the pending Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (the “Petition”) be dismissed. It is further recommended that a certificate of appealability be denied.
IL REPORT
Eric Wayne Smith (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this matter. In the Petition, he seeks federal habeas relief from his 2013 conviction in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Pennsylvania, for false imprisonment, terroristic threats, corruption of minors, and indecent assault, at Case No. CP-63-000054-2013. ECF No. 2 at 1; ECF No. 17-5 at 8.
A. Relevant Procedural History
Petitioner was convicted of the above-noted crimes following a bench trial on August 23, 2013. ECF No. 17-5 at 8 and 11. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of six to twelve years on December 6, 2013. Id. at 8 and 12.
Petitioner timely filed a direct appeal with the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which was denied in an unpublished opinion on November 17, 2014. ECF No. 17-6 at 1. Petitioner filed a petition for allocatur with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on February 26, 2015, which appears to have been treated as timely filed, and was denied on June 16, 2015. ECF No. 17-8 at 1; See also Docket Sheet for Case No. 77 WAL 2015 (available at https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/PacDocketSheet?docketNumber=77%20WAL%202015&dn h=4QP9C5z4UeFhZ%2FRRlzb9xg%3D%3D (last visited Dec. 14, 2021)).[1]
The record does not indicate that Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. As such, his conviction became final on September 14, 2015, 90 days after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur. See U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 13; see also Jenkins v. Sup't of Laurel Highlands, 705 F.3d 80, 84 (3d Cir. 2013) (“On direct review, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Jenkins's petition for allowance of appeal on September 28, 2007. . . . Because Jenkins had ninety days to petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, his conviction became final on December 27, 2007.”).
Petitioner filed a pro se petition under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9541, et seq., on or about November 6, 2015. ECF No. 17-9
at 4; see also Docket Sheet for Case No. CP-63-CR-54-2013 (available at https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/CpDocketSheet?docketNumber=CP-63-CR-0000054-2013&dnh=NFbRQYV960YehHALIxkNTg%3D%3D (last visited Dec. 14, 2021)). The PCRA trial court appointed counsel, who was replaced twice before an amended PCRA Petition was filed on September 15, 2016. ECF No. 17-9 at 4. After an evidentiary hearing, post conviction relief was denied in a order issued on June 1, 2017.[2] Docket Sheet for Case No. CP-63-CR-54-2013; see also ECF No. 17-13 at 3.
The order denying PCRA relief was not served on Petitioner and, as a result, a second PCRA motion was filed with the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County on July 19, 2017. This resulted in the reinstatement of Petitioner's appellate rights. Docket Sheet for Case No. CP-63-CR-54-2013. A notice of appeal with respect to the trial court's denial of the first PCRA proceedings was filed on August 10, 2017, which the Pennsylvania Superior Court treated as timely-filed.[3] Id., ; see also ECF No. 17-13 at 3-4, n.2. Petitioner's appeal to the Superior Court in his first PCRA proceedings was denied on March 19, 2018. ECF No. 17-13 at 1.
Petitioner's timely filed petition for allocatur was denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on September 4, 2018. ECF No. 17-12 at 1; see also Com, v. Smith, 193 A.3d 344, 648 Pa. 333 (Pa. 2018) (table).[4]
On December 30, 2018, Petitioner filed a “Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence” in the Court of Common Pleas. Docket Sheet for Case No. CP-63-CR-54-2013; see also Com, v. Smith, 240 A.3d 900 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020) (table).[5] This was treated as an untimely second PCRA petition, and denied by the trial court on October 21, 2019.[6] Docket Sheet for Case No. CP-63-CR-54-2013; see also Smith, 240 A.3d at 900. Petitioner timely appealed, and the Superior Court affirmed that dismissal on September 1, 2020. In its opinion, the Superior Court held that the second PCRA petition was untimely, and that as a result, it lacked jurisdiction to address its merits. IT There is no indication on the record that Petitioner appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
This Court received the instant Petition on February 26, 2021; however, the signature block on the Petition indicates that it was signed on February 9, 2021. ECF No. 2 at 15. For the purposes of this Order, the undersigned presumes that the Petition was placed on the prison mail system on
the same day that it was signed. As such, the Petition has an apparent effective filing date of February 9, 2021.
On June 29, 2021, the District Attorney of Washington County (“Respondent”) filed the instant Motion to Dismiss and brief in support thereof.[7] ECF Nos. 16 and 17. Petitioner filed his response in opposition on July 8, 2021. ECF No. 19. The pending Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 16, is ripe for adjudication.
B. The AEDPA Statute of Limitations
The first consideration in reviewing a federal habeas corpus petition is whether the petition was timely filed within the applicable statute of limitations. In 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, which established, generally, a strict one-year statute of limitations for the filing habeas petitions pursuant to Section 2254. The applicable portion of the statute is as follows:
(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of-
(A) the date on...
To continue reading
Request your trial