The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert C. Mitchell United States Magistrate Judge
John Wesley Bolam 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 basis for appeal exists, a certificate of appealability will be denied.
Bolam is presently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution - Greene serving a fifty to one hundred year sentence imposed following his conviction, by the court, of aggravated assault, criminal attempt (homicide), simple assault and recklessly endangering another person at No. CP-65-CR-3806-2002 in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. This sentence was imposed on July 23, 2003.*fn1
An appeal was taken to the Pennsylvania Superior Court in which the issues raised were:
I. Whether John W. Bolam's waiver of jury trial was knowing and voluntary, in light of discovery materials destroyed and prosecutorial misconduct?
II. Whether the trial court based its verdicts upon the court's personal knowledge of facts not of record?
III. Whether the trial court erred in denying post-sentence motions challenging the weight and sufficiency of the evidence?*fn2 On July 8, 2004, the judgment of sentence was affirmed.*fn3
A petition for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was filed in which these same issues were raised.*fn4 On December 15, 2004, leave to appeal was denied.*fn5
A timely post-conviction petition was filed and relief was denied on September 21, 2005.*fn6 An appeal was taken to the Superior Court in which the issues presented were:
1. Whether the PCRA court erred in holding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to bad acts evidence elicited from witnesses Stacy Wargo and Kim Brant at trial.
2. Whether the PCRA court erred in holding that trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to object to or raise on appeal the issue of whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences.*fn7 On June 30, 2006, the denial of post-conviction relief was affirmed.*fn8
A petition for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was filed in which the questions presented were the same as those presented to the Superior Court.*fn9 On January 18, 2007, the petition for allowance of appeal was denied.*fn10
On March 26, 2007, the petitioner filed a second post-conviction petition which was dismissed on April 30, 2007 as untimely and which u8had failed to raise any issues which would waive the timeliness requirement.*fn11 An appeal was taken to the Superior Court which affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief.*fn12 And ...