United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
EDWARD J. HALYE, Petitioner
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Respondents.
WILLIAM J. NEALON, District Judge.
Petitioner, Edward J. Halye, an inmate confined in the State Correctional Institution, Somerset, Pennsylvania, filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He attacks a conviction imposed by the Court of Common Pleas for Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1). Following careful consideration of the parties' submissions, and for the reasons discussed below, the petition will be dismissed as untimely. See 28 U.S.C. §2244(d).
The following background has been extracted from the Pennsylvania Superior Court's May 2, 2012 Memorandum Opinion, affirming the state court's denial of Halye's petition under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541, et seq. ("PCRA"). (Doc. 1, Memorandum Opinion dated May 2, 2012).
On January 21, 1997, Appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts each of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and indecent assault and one count each of corruption of minors and endangering the welfare of children. The court classified him as a sexually violent predator and sentenced him to an aggregate term of incarceration of no less than 138 months to life.
Appellant filed a direct appeal and this Court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for re-sentencing. (See Commonwealth v. Halye , 719 A.2d 763, 765, 769 (Pa.Super. 1998) (en banc). Our Supreme Court denied the Commonwealth's petition for allowance of appeal on September 9, 1999, and the United States Supreme Court denied its petition for writ of certiorari on March 6, 2000. (See Commonwealth v. Halye, 743 A.2d 916 (Pa. 1999), cert denied, 529 U.S. 1012 (2000)). On May 3, 2000, Appellant was re-sentenced to an aggregate term of incarceration of no less than eleven nor more than thirty years. Appellant did not file post-sentence motions or a direct appeal.
On November 7, 2003, Appellant filed what the PCRA court treated as his first petition. The court appointed counsel and, on September 13, 2004, held an evidentiary hearing. The court denied Appellant's petition on October 28, 2004 on substantive grounds. Nearly six years later, on May 26, 2010,  Appellant appealed to this Court. On August 28, 2010, this Court quashed Appellant's appeal as untimely. (See Commonwealth v. Halye, 1219 MDA 2010 (Per Curiam Order, 8/19/10)). On March 8, 2011, our Supreme Court denied Appellant's petition for allowance of appeal. (See Commonwealth v. Halye, 2011 Pa. Lexis 563 (Pa. 2011)(Pennsylvania Supreme Court Order, 3/08/11)).
On April 12, 2011, Appellant filed his pro se second PCRA petition, asserting general allegations of ineffectiveness of counsel and that the PCRA court "deprived [him] of [his] constitutional rights to  appeal." (PCRA Petition, 4/12/11, at 3). On July 27, 2011, the PCRA court issued a Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907(1) notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing. Appellant filed a response, and, on October 19, 2011, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant's petition as untimely. This timely pro se appeal followed.
Appellant raises four questions for our review:
1. Was [Appellant]'s Post Conviction Collateral Relief Motion timely filed?
2. Was [Appellant]'s previous Post Conviction Collateral Relief Motion fair and impartial?
3. Was [Appellant] deprived of his Constitutional [r]ights to effective assistance of counsel?
4. Was [Appellant] deprived of his Constitutional [r]ight to appeal his legal case to the Superior Court do/to [sic] [g]overnmental interference?
(Doc. 1, pp. 22-25, Memorandum Opinion dated May 2, 2012). By Memorandum Opinion dated May 2, 2012, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court's order ...