The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mitchell, M.J.:
Courtney Trent Richardson, an inmate at the Muskegon Correctional Facility in Muskegon, Michigan has presented a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which he has been granted leave to prosecute in forma pauperis. 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.
Richardson is serving a life and concurrent five to ten year sentence imposed following his conviction by a jury of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder at Nos. 534 and 588 of 1980, in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, Pennsylvania. This sentence was imposed on June 8, 1981.*fn1 An appeal was taken to the Superior Court which Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on July 27, 1984 and leave to appeal was denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on January 7, 1985.*fn2
As set forth in the petition, and as demonstrated by Docket No. CP-26-CR-534-1980*fn3 Richardson filed a post-conviction petition on December 12, 1992 and after several amendments that petition was dismissed on February 11, 1997. The Superior Court affirmed the denial of relief on April 15, 1998.
A second petition for post-conviction relief was filed on October 15, 1998 and dismissed as untimely on October 23, 1998. An appeal was taken to the Superior Court and leave to appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was denied on January 10, 2000.
A third post-conviction petition was filed on March 9, 2009 and it was denied as "patently untimely" on March 13, 2009. The denial of relief was affirmed by the Superior Court on February 5, 2010.
A fourth post-conviction petition was filed on July 19, 2010 and denied on August 20, 2010 as the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Apparently the denial of relief was affirmed on appeal and on November 9, 2010, leave to appeal was denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
In the petition presently before this Court which was executed on April 22, 2011, Richardson contends he is entitled to relief on the following grounds:
1. Newly discovered evidence dictates that [the Supreme Court, Superior Court and the Commonwealth Court lacked] jurisdiction for appeal purposes.
2. Misstatements of the law lead to a fundamental miscarriage of justice. This included reading improper jury instructions.
3. Did all prior counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel. Trial counsel never objected to improper jury instructions; PCRA counsel never raised trial counsel's ineffectiveness on this issue. New[ly] appointed PCRA counsel never raised ineffectiveness o[f] both trial counsel and original PCRA counsel's ineffectiveness on this issue.
4. Did a fundamentally unfair trial and all previous collateral proceedings occur. The state was relieved of proving all elements of their case by the reading of improper ...