Williams v. Miller, 1:20-cv-931

• Decision Date: 07 October 2020
• Docket Number: No. 1:20-cv-931,1:20-cv-931
• Parties: TIRRELL WILLIAMS, Petitioner v. GEORGE A. MILLER, et al., Respondents
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

TIRRELL WILLIAMS, Petitioner v. GEORGE A. MILLER, et al., Respondents

No. 1:20-cv-931

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

October 7, 2020

(Judge Rambo)

MEMORANDUM

On June 9, 2020, pro se Petitioner Tirrell Williams ("Petitioner"), who is presently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution in Waymart, Pennsylvania ("SCI Waymart"), initiated the above-captioned action by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) After receiving two extensions of time to do so (Doc. Nos. 8, 9, 11, 12), Respondents filed their response on September 21, 2020 (Doc. No. 14) and filed the appendix on September 25, 2020 (Doc. No. 16). Petitioner filed a traverse on October 1, 2020. (Doc. No. 18.) Accordingly, Petitioner's § 2254 petition is ripe for disposition. For the following reasons, the Court will deny Petitioner's § 2254 petition.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

On October 24, 2013, following a jury trial in the Court of Common Pleas for Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, Petitioner was found guilty of two counts of robbery, one count of theft by unlawful taking, and one count of simple assault. See Commonwealth v. Williams, Docket No. CP-41-CR-0002010-2012 (Lycoming Cty. C.C.P.).¹ The Superior Court of Pennsylvania set forth the background of the case as follows:

On the night of January 5, 2012, Michael Stewart (Stewart) met Amy Baird (Baird) at a bar, where Stewart had two pitchers of beer and Baird had more than three drinks. After spending some time at the bar, Stewart and Baird went to Baird's house. At the house, Baird told Stewart that she wanted marijuana, and Stewart gave Baird money to pay for marijuana. Baird used Stewart's phone to order marijuana. An individual, who was not [Petitioner], came to Baird's house and sold Baird a bag of drugs. About thirteen minutes later, Baird and Stewart realized that the bag contained a drug that was not marijuana. Baird again used Stewart's phone to call the individual who had originally delivered the drugs. Baird asked the individual to come back to the house with marijuana. When the individual came back, he was with [Petitioner] and two other people. The individual, [Petitioner], and the two other people will be referred to as the group.

Baird testified that she and [Petitioner] went to the upstairs of the house. A short time later, they returned downstairs, where they saw the three others in the group and Stewart in the kitchen. Baird testified that she again went upstairs, this time alone. Baird testified that while she was upstairs, she heard a commotion downstairs. Therefore, she went downstairs, where she saw the group stomping and punching Stewart, while he was on the kitchen floor. As mentioned above, the group included [Petitioner].

Stewart testified that the group surrounded him while he was in the kitchen cleaning up hot oil. He testified that while he was talking with one member of the group, another member would start talking to him. Stewart testified that he was talking to [Petitioner] when he heardanother member of the group stay, "Yo partner, let me talk to you." Stewart testified that he turned to talk to the member who made the "partner" comment and was then struck in the back of the head by [Petitioner]. Stewart testified that the group beat him and punched him. One member of the group hit him in the head with a glass bottle, which caused him to fall to the floor. Stewart testified that he did not know which member hit him with the bottle. Stewart testified that while he was on the floor, the group kicked him and stomped him all over his body. Stewart testified that he rolled up into the fetal position to protect himself.

Stewart testified that[,] while he was on the floor, one member of the group said, "Stand this [MF] up, so I can shoot him." Stewart did not know which member said this, but he felt the members trying to grab his arms to stand him up. Stewart testified that he did not let the group stand him up because he was scared that he would be shot and killed. Stewart testified that one member of the group poured hot oil on him. Stewart testified that he did not know which member poured the oil on him. After feeling the hot oil, Stewart got up and ran into the living room.

Stewart testified that[,] while he was on the floor, he could feel members of the group going through the pockets of his pants. He testified that[,] before the incident, he had his wallet and cell phone in his pockets. Stewart testified that after the incident, he no longer had his wallet and cell phone.

After the incident, Baird called [the] police. Office Mark Lindauer (Lindauer) of the Williamsport Bureau of Police responded to the call. Lindauer noticed that there was grease and broken glass on the kitchen floor.

Stewart was taken to the hospital by ambulance. As a result of the incident, he had a one[-]inch laceration on his head and a headache for three to four days. In addition, he was bruised and stiff for a week.

(Doc. No. 16 at 254-55.) On March 27, 2014, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to serve a minimum of six (6) and a maximum of twelve (12) years' incarceration. (Id.at 255.) Petitioner subsequently filed timely post-sentence motions challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and arguing that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. (Id. at 194-97.) On July 28, 2014, the trial court denied Petitioner's post-sentence motions. (Id. at 200-06.)

Petitioner appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his robbery conviction and, in the alternative, that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. (Id. at 253.) On March 20, 2015, the Superior Court affirmed Petitioner's judgment of sentence. (Id. at 253-66.) On December 29, 2015, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied Petitioner's petition for allowance of appeal. (Id. at 313.)

On April 15, 2016, Petitioner filed a pro se Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA") petition in the Court of Common Pleas for Lycoming County. (Id. at 315-94.) Counsel was appointed to represent Petitioner, and on July 21, 2017, counsel filed a petition to withdraw pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988), alleging that there was no merit to Petitioner's PCRA petition. (Doc. No. 16 at 396-404.) On October 6, 2017, the PCRA court granted counsel's motion to withdraw and issued a notice that it intended to dismiss Petitioner's PCRA petition. (Id. at 406-16.) On October 31, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion to supplement. (Id. at 418-21.) On November 8, 2017, the PCRA court treated Petitioner's motion to supplement as hisresponse to the notice of intent to dismiss and dismissed the PCRA petition. (Id. at 423-24.)

Petitioner timely appealed to the Superior Court, arguing inter alia, that he never received the PCRA court's order granting counsel's motion to withdraw and providing notice of its intent to dismiss his PCRA petition. See Commonwealth v. Williams, No. 431 MDA 2018, 2018 WL 4997992, at *2-3 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 16, 2018). The Superior Court concluded that the record supported Petitioner's contention and remanded the matter to the PCRA court for further proceedings. Id. at *4. On March 6, 2019, the PCRA court again granted counsel's motion to withdraw and issued a notice that it intended to dismiss Petitioner's PCRA petition. (Doc. No. 16 at 428-33.) Petitioner filed a response to the notice. (Id. at 435.) On March 27, 2019, the PCRA court dismissed Petitioner's PCRA petition. (Id. at 437.)

Petitioner again appealed to the Superior Court. On appeal, Petitioner raised the following claims of ineffective assistance: (1) trial counsel failed to file a motion to suppress; (2) trial counsel failed to object to and move for a new jury pool; (3) trial counsel failed to present evidence of police reports and other prior testimony at trial; (4) trial counsel failed to question the Commonwealth's witnesses about the possibility of leniency; and (5) trial counsel failed to present a proper insufficient evidence claim or challenge all of Petitioner's convictions on direct appeal. Commonwealth v. Williams, 220 A.3d 1086, 1090 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019). TheSuperior Court affirmed the dismissal of Petitioner's PCRA petition on October 8, 2019. Id. at 1096. On April 30, 2020, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied Petitioner's petition for allowance of appeal. (Doc. No. 16 at 572.) This Court received Petitioner's § 2254 petition on June 9, 2020. (Doc. No. 1.)

B. Habeas Claims Presented

Petitioner raises the following claims for relief in his § 2254 petition:

1. Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to impeach Baird and Stewart with statements contained within the police reports;

2. Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to question Baird about the possibility of leniency during trial;

3. Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to present a proper claim regarding sufficiency of the evidence; and

4. Cumulative error.

(Doc. No. 1 at 15-17.)

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Habeas corpus is an "'extraordinary remedy' reserved for defendants who were 'grievously wronged' by the criminal proceedings." See Dunn v. Colleran, 247 F.3d 450, 468 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting Calderon v. Coleman, 525 U.S. 414, 146 (1998)). The exercise of restraint by a federal court in reviewing and granting habeas relief is appropriate due to considerations of comity and federalism. See Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 128 (1982). "The States possess primary authority for definingand enforcing the criminal law. In criminal trials they also hold the initial responsibility for vindicating constitutional rights. Federal intrusions into state criminal trials frustrate both the States' sovereign power and their good-faith attempts to honor constitutional law." Id. States also have a recognized interest in the finality of...