IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
November 30, 2012
SALEEM BUTLER, PETITIONER,
JEROME WALSH, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF DELAWARE, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jan E. DuBOIS, J.
AND NOW, this 30th day of November, 2012, upon consideration of the pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Document No. 1, filed April 4, 2011) and the Response to the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document No. 7, filed June 9, 2011); and after review of the Supplemental Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski (Document No. 16, filed July 19, 2012) and petitioner's Objection[s] to the Honorable Magistrate Judge, Lynne A. Satarski [sic] Report and Recommendation (Document No. 18, filed August 8, 2012), for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum dated November 30, 2012, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. The Supplemental Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski dated July 19, 2012 is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. Petitioner's Objection[s] to the Honorable Magistrate Judge, Lynne A. Satarski [sic] Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED;
3. The Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by Saleem Butler is DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART as follows:
a. The 1(c)-(j) ineffective assistance of counsel claims are DISMISSED;
b. The ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on eliciting testimony about the .44 revolver is DENIED;
c. The claims based on Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600, the Sixth Amendment, and failure to instruct the jury on the crime of manslaughter are DISMISSED, and the related due process claims are DISMISSED;
d. The claim based on sufficiency of the evidence is DENIED;
e. The claim based on improper joinder is DISMISSED, and the related due process claim is DISMISSED;
f. The ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on failure to object to the polling of the jury is DENIED;
4. A certificate of appealability WILL NOT ISSUE for any of petitioner's claims because reasonable jurists would not debate whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
BY THE COURT:
Hon. Jan E. DuBois
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.