Weimer v. Capozza
| Decision Date | 29 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 2: 20-cv-0781 |
| Parties | PAUL DAVID WEIMER, Petitioner, v. MARK CAPOZZA, Superintendent, SCI Fayette; JOSH SHAPIRO, PA Attorney General; and STEPHEN A. ZAPPALA, JR., District Attorney of Allegheny County, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Pending before the Court[1] is the counseled Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed on behalf of Paul David Weimer (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. (ECF 20). He is challenging the April 3 2018, Judgments of Sentence imposed on him by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County at Criminal Case Nos CP-02-CR-0011522-2010, CP-02-CR-0011523-2010, and CP-02-CR-0011535-2010. For the reasons below, the Court will deny Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing will deny the Amended Petition, and will deny a certificate of appealability as to each claim.
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. It permits 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). Errors of state law are not cognizable in a federal habeas action. Id.; see, e.g., Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Indeed, the Court is bound by the state courts' determinations of state law. See, e.g., Priester v. Vaughn, 382 F.3d 394, 402 (3d Cir. 2004) () (quoting Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67-68).
It is Petitioner's burden to prove that he is entitled to the writ. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see, e.g., Vickers v. Superintendent Graterford SCI, 858 F.3d 841, 848-49 (3d Cir. 2017). There are other prerequisites that he must satisfy before he can receive habeas relief on his claims. For example, the burden imposed on him by the standard of review enacted by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) (which is discussed below). But ultimately, Petitioner cannot receive federal habeas relief unless he establishes that he is in custody in violation of his federal constitutional rights. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see, e.g., Vickers, 858 F.3d at 849.
This contentious case has an extensive and complicated history. On August 5, 2010, Petitioner was arrested and eventually charged in four separate Informations, with a total of twenty-one counts encompassing Rape, Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse, Statutory Sexual Assault, Unlawful Contact with a Minor, Endangering the Welfare of a Child, False Imprisonment, Corruption of Minors, and Furnishing Liquor to Minors in relation to various incidents with four young men, identified as J.C., J.D., R.Z., and M.G., who either lived with or visited Petitioner at his home. The procedural history of this case was recounted by the Superior Court in its Memorandum affirming the Judgments of Sentence:
Commonwealth v. Weimer, No. 1331 WDA 2012, slip. op. (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 1, 2013) (ECF 221 at pp. 383-84).
Throughout the pretrial and trial proceedings, Petitioner was represented by the Office of the Public Defender of Allegheny County. Attorney Michelle L. Collins entered her appearance on November 5, 2010. PCRA Trial Court 1925(a) Opinion, No. 20101122, 20101123, 20101125, slip op. (C.P. Allegheny, Oct. 13, 2016) (ECF 22-1 at p. 783). Attorney Carrie L. Allman entered her appearance on April 8, 2011.
A week later, Petitioner, represented by Attorney Allman, appeared before the Honorable Donna Jo McDaniel[3] and proceeded to a jury trial on Case Nos. 201011522, 201011523, 201011524, and 201011535.[4] Assistant District Attorney Patrick Schulte represented the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth and defense advanced two radically different versions of events.[5] The Commonwealth's position was that Petitioner's “house of cards, [was] a house built out of an unbridled desire to have oral and anal sex with teenage boys, ” N.T. at p. 18, which was “a breeding ground for child molestation.” N.T. at p. 19. Petitioner testified that he never had or asked for oral or anal sex with any of his accusers. N.T. at pp. 565, 566, 567, 571.
At the close of the Commonwealth's case, the trial court granted the defense Motion for Judgment of Acquittal at the false imprisonment charge at Count 8 of CP-02-CR-0011522-2010. (N.T. at pp. 409-11). On August 18, 2011, the jury returned these verdicts:
Sentencing was postponed for the preparation of a presentence report and a determination as to whether Petitioner should be classified as a sexually violent predator (“SVP”). Before sentencing, Attorney Allman sought to withdraw as counsel due to a conflict with Petitioner. The trial court granted this request after Attorney Lea T. Bickerton entered her appearance as privately retained counsel. On March 13, 2012, Petitioner, with Attorney Bickerton, appeared for his SVP and sentencing hearing. The trial court determined Petitioner met the criteria to be classified as a SVP and proceeded to sentencing. (S.T. at pp. 24-25). Petitioner received an aggregate sentence of 25 to 50 years' incarceration, that included mandatory sentences:
No other penalties were imposed. As a result of being classified a SVP, Petitioner was subject to lifetime reporting requirements upon his release from incarceration. At the end of the sentencing hearing, Attorney Bickerton moved to withdraw as counsel. That request was granted and Attorney Scott Coffey was appointed to represent Petitioner in the appeal process. Attorney Coffey filed post-sentence motions. The court granted in part the post-sentence motions, granting two additional days of credit to Petitioner and denied the post-sentence motions in all other respects.
Petitioner, through Attorney Coffey, filed a direct appeal with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in which he raised these three claims:
To continue reading
Request your trial