United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
RICHARD P. CONABOY, District Judge.
This pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was initiated by Maurice Chambers, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution, Somerset, Pennsylvania (SCI-Somerset). The required filing fee has been paid. Named as Respondent is SCI-Somerset Superintendent Trevor Wingard.
Following a jury trial in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, Chambers was convicted of second degree murder, robbery, and two (2) counts of criminal conspiracy. On December 5, 1997, Petitioner was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment.
By Memorandum dated May 20, 1999, the Superior Court affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence. See Commonwealth v. Chambers, 742 A.2d 201(Pa.Super. 1999) (Table). A request allowance of appeal was subsequently denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See Commonwealth v. Chambers, 749 A.2d 466 (Pa. 2000) (Table). Thereafter, the United States Supreme Court denied Chambers' petition for writ of certiorari. See Chambers v. Pennsylvania, 531 U.S. 853 (2000).
Chambers then sought relief under Pennsylvania's Post Convict Relief Act (PCRA). The trial court denied PCRA petition on June 12, 2003. The Superior Court likewise denied relief. See Commonwealth v. Chambers, 852 A.2d 1197 (Pa.Super. 2004). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied a it ion for allowance of appeal. See Commonwealth v. Chambers, 871 A.2d 188 (Pa. 2005) (Table).
Petitioner next filed a petition federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to § 2254 with this Court. See Chambers v. Rozum, Civil No. 3:CV-05-1634. Therein, Chambers claimed entitlement to federal habeas corpus relief on the grounds that: (1) the underlying criminal indictment on set forth a general count of homicide and failed to allege every element of second degree murder violation of the principles announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999); (2) under the Apprendi and Jones standards, the insufficient criminal indictment as scribed above caused Petitioner's sentence to be improperly enhanced to a term of life imprisonment; (3) Chambers' robbery conviction violated due process in that he was charged with the robbery of an illegal substance; (4) since the evidence established that there was no theft, the robbery conviction and second degree murder convictions are unsupported. By Memorandum and Order dated October 26, 2006, this Court denied Chambers' prior § 2254 petition on the merits.
Petitioner asserts that he sought PCRA relief for a second time in 2007. See Doc. 1, ¶ 11. His petition was dismissed as being untimely on October 20, 2009. See Doc. 2, p. 8. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the dismissal. See Commonwealth v. Chambers, 11 A.3d 1026 (Pa.Super. 2010). The pennsylvani Supreme Court denied Petitioner's appeal. See Commonwealth v. Chambers, 21 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2011).
Chambers sought PCRA relief for the third time in an action which was filed on April 24, 2012 and dismiss on December 10, 2012. See id. at p. 9. The Pennsylvania Superior quashed an appeal as being untimely and his petition for allowance of appeal was denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on October 17, 2013. See Commonwealth v. Chambers, 77 A.3d 1258 (Pa.Super. 2013).
Petitioner led a fourth PCRA action which was dismissed as untimely on March 17, 2014. See Doc. 2, p. 24. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed that decision on October 7, 2014. See id. A petition for allowance of appeal was denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on February 17, 2015. See id. at p. 22.
In his pending second § 2254 action Petitioner argues that he is entitled to federal habeas corpus relief because the jury was not given an instruction on the charge of theft by unlawful taking. See id. at ¶ 12. In support of his claim Petitioner relies in part on Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013).
28 U.S.C. § 2244(a) and Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States strict Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (1977), set forth the pertinent authority for determination as to whether second or successive § 2254 habeas corpus petitions may be reviewed by federal district courts. See Graham v. Warden, FCI-Allenwood, 2009 WL 326010 *1 (3d Cir. Oct. 13, 2009) (§ 2244 (a) bars second or success challenges to the legality of detention). Rule 9(b) of Habeas Corpus Rules provides:
Before presenting a second or successive petition, the petitioner must obtain an order from the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition ...