Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wheatley v. Klem

October 18, 2006

STEVEN WHEATLEY, PETITIONER
v.
EDWARD KLEM, ET. AL, RESPONDENTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Jones

Magistrate Judge Blewitt

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

The Petitioner, Steven Wheatley ("Petitioner") an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy filed this pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the Petition, Petitioner challenges his March 9, 2001 conviction in the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas with respect to his shooting of a police officer victim on three grounds; (1) insufficient evidence to support attempted criminal attempt to commit murder and aggravated assault convictions; (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to adequately investigate and obtain forensic testimony; and (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to request an appropriate jury instruction. (Rec. Doc. 1 at 6-9).

The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt.*fn1 Thereafter, on September 20, 2006, Magistrate Judge Blewitt issued a Report and Recommendation (doc. 15) recommending that the Petition for Habeas Corpus be denied with respect to its three claims. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery and for Appointment of an Expert (doc. 12) be denied because no further information is required to decide Petitioner's habeas claims.

Objections to Magistrate Judge Mannion's report were due by October 6, 2006. On September 29, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the report. (Rec. Doc. 16). The matter is therefore ripe for our review.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When objections are filed to a report of a magistrate judge, we make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge to which there are objections. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980); see also 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.3l. Furthermore, district judges have wide discretion as to how they treat recommendations of a magistrate judge. See id. Indeed, in providing for a de novo review determination rather than a de novo hearing, Congress intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound discretion, chooses to place on a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations. See id., see also Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 275 (1976); Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984).

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 9, 2001 Petitioner was found guilty, by a jury, in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Pennsylvania, of attempted homicide and related charges, namely aggravated assault and reckless endangerment with respect to his shooting of Police Officer Rice. The Court also found the Petitioner guilty of possession of a firearm by a former convict. On April 11, 2001, the Petitioner was sentenced to an aggregate term of fifteen to thirty years incarceration.

On April 23, 2001, Petitioner filed a post-sentence motion raising several issues regarding his finding of guilt and sufficiency of the evidence against him. On June 4, 2001, Petitioner also filed a motion challenging his sentence. The trial court denied these post-sentence motions on June 29, 2001.

On July 24, 2001, the Petitioner filed a direct appeal of his judgment of his sentence with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The Superior Court affirmed the Petitioner's conviction on August 16, 2002. On September 15, 2002, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court denied on August 26, 2003.

On April 22, 2004, the Petitioner filed a pro se Petition for Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA") with the Court of Common Pleas. Counsel was appointed to represent Petitioner relative to his PCRA petition. On October 13, 2004, Petitioner, through his counsel, filed an amended PCRA petition, limiting his ineffective assistance of counsel claims to four issues, including the two ineffective assistance of counsel claims included in the present Petition.

The Court of Common Pleas denied the PCRA petition on February 17, 2005. The Petitioner appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on March 3, 2005, and the Superior Court affirmed the Court of Common Pleas's "excellent" decision on October 27, 2005. (Rec. Doc. 5, Ex. 9). On November 15, 2005, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court denied on May 25, 2006. The current Petition was filed on June 19, 2006.

DISCUSSION

A. Magistrate Judge's Summary of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.