The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mitchell, M.J.:
Presently before the Court for disposition is the Commonwealth's Motion to Dismiss (ECF.No.9). For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted and because reasonable jurists could not conclude that a basis for appeal exists, a certificate of appealability will be denied.
Tequilla Fields, an inmate at the State Correctional Facility at Muncy has presented a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which she has been granted leave to prosecute in forma pauperis. Fields is presently serving life sentence imposed following her conviction, by a jury, of second degree murder, arson-endangering persons, arson-endangering property, cruelty to animals and criminal conspiracy at Nos. CC 200503061 and CC200505726, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. This sentence was imposed on October 19, 2005.*fn1
An appeal was taken to the Superior Court on November 15, 2005 and on January 22, 2007, the conviction and sentence were affirmed and leave to appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was denied on June 26, 2007.*fn2
On May 10, 2008 a post-conviction petition was filed and relief was denied on March 26, 2009. An appeal to the Superior Court was filed and on July 28, 2010 the denial of relief was affirmed and leave to appeal was denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on June 8, 2011.*fn3
In the instant petition which was executed on March 21, 2012, Fields contends she is entitled to relief on the following grounds:
1. Son's life was in jeopardy from lethal effects of asthma as a result of toxic dog.
2. [Petitioner] motivated to save child's life from suffocation secondary to asthma. Not malice. No criminal intent or actions.
3. No chain of custody of accelerant evidence.
4. Attorney did not consider [petitioner] was acting to protect her child, totally ignored or was ignorant of justification, or that she did not cause or approve the fire which her friend started independently of petitioner.*fn4
The factual background to this prosecution is set forth at length in the July 28, 2010 Memorandum of the Superior Court which Fields has submitted with her petition. Suffice it to say the facts of this bizarre case are that the petitioner and her two young children were forced to live with her mother who owned a dog to which petitioner believed her son was allergic. After unsuccessfully trying to lose the dog, petitioner and her co-defendant decided to douse the dog with kerosene and set it on fire. Apparently, the co-defendant ignited the kerosene and the dog ran into the house setting it on fire resulting in the death of petitioner's two children.*fn5
The Commonwealth has now moved to dismiss the instant petition as time barred. It is provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and (d)(2) that:
(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to the application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of -
(A) The date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the ...