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.

Michael Forbes v. David Diguglielmo

February 29, 2012

MICHAEL FORBES
v.
DAVID DIGUGLIELMO, ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Slomsky, J.

OPINION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

A. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Review.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

B. De Novo Review of Objections to Report and Recommendation by District Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

IV. DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

A. Petitioner's Objections Beyond the Scope of Federal Habeas Review .. . . . . . . . . 7

B. Analysis of Petitioner's Remaining Objections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1. Level of Deference.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2. Factual Findings.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3. Double Jeopardy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4. Due Process... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

a. Procedural Due Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

b. Substantive Due Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5. Significance of Aggregation by the Department of Corrections. . . . . . . . 20

6. Denial of Certificate of Appealability... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

V. CONCLUSION .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is the Revised Petition of Michael Forbes ("Petitioner") for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 4.) Petitioner seeks relief based on alleged violations of his rights under the Double Jeopardy and Due Process Clauses. For purposes of this Opinion, the Court has considered the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1),*fn1 Petitioner's Revised Habeas Corpus Petition and Memorandum in Support of the Revised Habeas Corpus Petition (Doc. Nos. 4-5), Answer to the Petition of Respondent Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("Department") (Doc. No. 12), Memorandum in Support of Respondent Department's Answer (Doc. No. 14), Petitioner's Reply in Support of Petition (Doc. No. 16), Answer to the Petition of Respondent Catherine McVey (Doc. No. 20), United States Magistrate Judge L. Felipe Restrepo's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 24), Petitioner's Objections to Magistrate Judge Restrepo's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No.

25), Respondent McVey's Brief in Opposition to Petitioner's Objections (Doc. No. 26), Respondent Department's Brief in Opposition to Petitioner's Objections (Doc. No. 27), Petitioner's Supplemental Memorandum (Doc. No. 33), Respondent Department's Supplemental Memorandum (Doc. No. 34), and the pertinent state court record.

Following a review of the filings by the parties and the pertinent record, Magistrate Judge Restrepo issued a Report recommending that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and that a certificate of appealability not be issued. (Doc. No. 24.) Petitioner filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 25.) Respondents then filed their Response to Petitioner's Objections. (Doc. Nos. 26-27.) For reasons that follow, the Court will approve and adopt Magistrate Judge Restrepo's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 24), and deny the Revised Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 4).

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On February 18, 1981, Petitioner received a sentence of ten to twenty years in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County after pleading nolo contendere to a rape charge. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) This sentence ("Sentence 1") took effect February 23, 1980, setting a parole eligibility date of February 23, 1990, and a maximum sentence date of February 23, 2000. (Id.) On February 11, 1982, Petitioner was convicted of another rape and sentenced to seven to fifteen years incarceration ("Sentence 2"). (Id.) Sentence 2 was ordered to be served consecutive to Sentence 1. (Id.)

After Sentence 1 and Sentence 2 were imposed, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections calculated Petitioner's sentence as follows:

On February 23, 1991, the [Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole ("Board")] paroled Forbes on Sentence 1 to begin serving Sentence 2.*fn2 The Board's records with respect to Sentence 2 reflected that Forbes would be eligible for parole on February 23, 1998, and that Forbes' maximum date was February 23, 2006. Following the Board's grant of parole, the Department commenced the running of Sentence 2.

On February 23, 2000, Forbes completed serving Sentence 1. The Board and the Department informed Forbes that he was serving only Sentence 2 and that Sentence 2 would expire on February 23, 2006. However, on February 23, ...


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.