The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
Presently before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) in which Nathaniel L. Negron, ("Negron"), challenges his Pennsylvania state convictions. For the reasons set forth below, the petition will be denied.
Negron pled guilty to a plethora of charges under seven different criminal action numbers in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. The facts of each action, which are set forth below, have been extracted from the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County's opinion denying Negron's petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 PA.C.S.A. § 9541, et. seq.
On August 17, 2001 . . . [Negron] and Encanasion set their victim, Anthony Mingledough on fire. They accomplished this by tossing gasoline on Mingledough, lighting a match, and throwing it as [sic] his feet. Immediately thereafter, Mingledough was engulfed in flames, at which time [Negron] and Encanasion fled the scene. Mingledough spent 110 days in the hospital, unconscious and unrecognizable, with severe burns that consumed over seventy-percent of his body. These burns eventually resulted in death.
[Negron], with his co-Defendant Encanasion, escaped from the Lebanon County Correctional Facility where they were being held awaiting trial for Anthony Mingledough's murder.
On February 14, 2001, [Negron] and others assaulted Joseph Ruiz-Roman while at Northeast Park, in Lebanon County. [Negron] repeatedly kicked Roman, causing bodily injury that facilitated treatment at the Good Samaritan Hospital.
On February 27, 2001, in Lebanon County, [Negron] unlawfully took a Nissan Pathfinder 2000 belonging to Digital Imaging Solution Corp. (Charles Kinloch) with intent to deprive the owner thereof.
[During a traffic stop on July 30, 1999], [t]he odor of alcohol was detected on [Negron's] breath, and he admitted consuming alcohol. . . . Results of [Negron's] blood test showed a . . . Blood Alcohol Content of .072%. [Negron] was nineteen at the time of this incident, which is under the legal drinking age of twenty-one. Action Number 2000-10200 [During a traffic stop on December 7, 1999], [u]pon smelling alcohol on [Negron's] breath, the officer asked [Negron] had any alcoholic beverages and he stated no. [Negron] agreed to a Preliminary Breath Test and the results were positive. Subsequently, his Blood Alcohol Content was determined to be .033%/. [Negron] was nineteen at the time of this incident, which is under the legal drinking age of twenty-one.
On August 25, 2001, . . . , Defendant Negron and his brother Isaac Negron, shot Luis Beltram and William Diaz. In the course of the shooting, the Defendant forced Beltram to enter Diaz's residence with intent to commit a felony. After entering Diaz's residence, the Defendant and Isaac Negron demanded money from Diaz while displaying a firearm. Additionally, the Defendant attempted by physical menace to put Patrolman Jeffrey Marley of the Lebanon County Police Department in fear of imminent serious bodily injury while in the performance of his duties. (Doc. 13-2, pp. 4-6). Negron pled guilty on December 19, 2002, and, on December 20, 2002, was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of forty to one hundred years imprisonment in a state correctional facility. (Id. at p. 7).
Following sentencing, he filed a timely appeal raising the issues of whether his guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary and whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel. In April 2003, the trial court issued a Supplemental Opinion finding the guilty plea to be knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered. (Doc. 13-2, p. 8). On appeal, the superior court affirmed the trial court's opinion on the issue of the guilty plea. (Doc. 13-3). With respect to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, because the trial court had not conducted a review on the record, the claim was dismissed without prejudice to Negron's right to raise it in collateral proceedings. (Doc. 13-3, p. 4).
Negron filed a timely PCRA on May 10, 2004, raising ineffective assistance of counsel claims, speedy trial violations, abuse of discretion in imposition of fines, and insufficient evidence to support the restitution order, inter alia. The PCRA court denied his petition on November 8, 2004. (Doc. 13-2). Each of the issues was pursued on appeal. The superior court affirmed on ...