The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mitchell, M.J.
Robert E. Raynovich an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Somerset has presented a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons set forth below, the petition will be dismissed and because reasonable jurists could not conclude that a viable basis for appeal exists, a certificate of appealability will be denied.
Raynovich is presently serving a twenty-nine to sixty-two year sentence imposed following his conviction, by the court, of rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, statutory sexual assault, aggravated indecent sexual assault, indecent assault, corrupting the morals of a minor, indecent exposure, endangering the welfare of children and selling or furnishing liquor to a minor at Nos. CC: 200004603, 200004605, 200002849, 200004852, 200004854 and 200004857, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. This sentence was imposed on April 20, 2001.*fn1
An appeal was taken to the Superior Court in which the issues presented were:
1. The sentencing court erred in finding Mr. Raynovich to be a sexually violent predator.
2. Trial counsel was ineffective in failing to raise several challenges to Megan's Law II and its application to this case.
3. The evidence did not support the trial court's finding that the defendant is a sexually violent predator.*fn2
The judgment of conviction was affirmed on February 18, 2004.*fn3 and leave to appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was denied on January 18, 2005.*fn4
In March 2005, the petitioner filed a post-conviction petition and relief was denied on November 22, 2006.*fn5 A timely notice of appeal was filed, and in his appeal the petitioner contended he was entitled to relief on the following grounds:
1. Has the petitioner waive all the issues raised in his concise statement of matter complained of on appeal?
2. Was direct appellate counsel ineffective for failing to raise trial counsel's ineffectiveness for failing to challenge the sexually violent predator hearing as a violation of due process, as it fails to afford defendants a hearing in a meaningful manner?*fn6
On May 1, 2008, the denial of post-conviction relief was affirmed.*fn7 At that time, the Superior Court likewise determined that the petitioner's late filing of his concise statement of issues on appeal, waived all issues that he could have raised.*fn8 Thus, it was concluded that the petitioner had procedurally defaulted on the post-conviction remedies available to him in the courts of the Commonwealth. A petition for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme was filed and leave to appeal was denied on September 9, 2008.*fn9
On June 7, 2009, Raynovich executed the instant petition. However, in his petition, he fails to set forth any grounds for relief here.*fn10 However, in his prayer for relief, petitioner states: the petitioner asks that the Court grant the following relief: to have my sentences ran concurrent and all documents, doctors reports, discover, transcripts ...