Baker v. Commonwealth, Civil No. 3:16-cv-1612

JEFFREY WAYNE BAKER, Petitioner v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Respondents

Civil No. 3:16-cv-1612

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

April 30, 2019

(Judge Munley)

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Jeffrey Wayne Baker ("Petitioner" or "Baker"), a state inmate currently confined at the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, files the instant petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking relief from convictions on twenty-nine counts of "sexual abuse of children - child pornography" in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(d)(1), and one count of criminal use of a communication facility in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. §7512, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County in 2008. (Doc. 1; Doc. 5-4, p. 2). The petition is presently ripe for disposition. For the reasons set forth below, the petition will be denied.

I. State Court Background

Below is a comprehensive summary of the facts and procedural history contained within the Superior Court decision affirming the denial of Baker's petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 PA.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546:

Statement of Facts

On February 6, 2007, Detective Adam Shope of the East Pennsboro Police Department, Detective Earl Bock of the District Attorney's Office, along with several other officers, served a search warrant at 115 South Enola Drive in Enola, Pennsylvania. [Appellant], 34 year old Jeffrey Baker, resides at the address with his father, Jack Baker, and his stepmother, Ruth Murray. Officers were acting on cybertips reported through America Online's (AOL) legal department that identified [Appellant's] email account as containing images that appeared to be child pornography. Officers had a search warrant for [Appellant's] computer and other computer hardware, software, CDs, DVDs which they believed to contain child pornography. [Appellant] was naked in bed sleeping when officers arrived, and his laptop computer was on a table by the side of his bed.

[Appellant] told Detective Bock that he conducted web searches using the search term "anal gang bang" and downloaded files with names that led him to believe they were child pornography, and that he had downloaded files as recently as the night before the search warrant. [Appellant] told Detective Bock that he used emails and a file-sharing website to trade nude and non-nude images of children.

Detectives seized [Appellant's] computer and other evidence from the residence and left without arresting [Appellant] at that time. [Appellant] told detectives that they would find child pornography on the seized computer. [Appellant's] laptop computer was attached to a write-blocker, which is a device that prevents additional items from being added to the hard drive. The content was analyzed by the Pennsylvania State Police and by the National Children's Resource Center. [Appellant's] computer was found to contain 34 video files of child pornography. Additional child pornography files were found on two CD's seized from [Appellant's] bedroom. [footnote: The files that were opened contained images of children as young as two years old being sexually abused. The first report of Dr. Paula B. George, the medical director of Children's Resource Center of Pinnacle Health, stated, "Many of these video/movie clips are of pre-school aged children being subjected to sex acts including vaginal, anal, and oral penetration by adult males or females." Report, 6/1/08, at 2, Commonwealth Exhibit 19; N.T., 7/14/08, at 175.].

Procedural History

A criminal complaint was filed on March 9, 2007, and [Appellant] was arrested on March 15, 2007. [Appellant] filed a Motion to Suppress on October 22, 2007. A hearing on the Motion was held before Judge J. Wesley Oler, Jr., on January 2, 2008. [Appellant's] motion was denied. A jury trial was then held on July 14 and 15, 2008. [Appellant] was found guilty of [twenty-nine counts of sexual abuse of children and one count of criminal use of communication facility] and was ordered to submit to an assessment by the Sexual Offender Assessment Board. A hearing was held on April 20, 2009, to determine [Appellant's] status as a Sexually Violent Predator. After the hearing and consideration of briefs submitted by the parties, the Court found [Appellant] to be a Sexually Violent Predator. On May 12, 2009, [Appellant] was sentenced to a term of state imprisonment for twenty-five to fifty years. This was the mandatory minimum sentence required under 42 Pa.C.S. §9718.2 and § 9795.1 of the Pennsylvania Sentencing Code.

[Appellant] appealed his case to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. On June 27, 2011, in a published opinion, the Superior Court affirmed [Appellant's] judgment of sentence and found that he was properly determined to be a sexually violent predator. Commonwealth v. Baker, 24 A.3d 1006 (Pa. Super. 2011). [Appellant] then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. On October 30, 2013, in a published opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed [Appellant's] twenty-five year mandatory minimum sentence for [Appellant's] second conviction of possessing child pornography. Commonwealth v. Baker, 78 A.3d 1044 (Pa. 2013).

[Appellant] filed this [timely] motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief pro se on March 6, 2014. [n.2 The Commonwealth stipulated at the PCRA hearing on April 2, 2015, that the PCRA petition was timely. N.T. (PCRA), 4/2/15, at 3.] Counsel was appointed to represent [Appellant] and he was allowed to file an amended petition. On October 6, 2014, this Court granted permission for [Appellant's] then PCRA counsel to withdraw. A new attorney was appointed to represent [Appellant] and he again was allowed permission to file an amended PCRA petition. On January 20, 2015, [Appellant] filed an Amended Post-Conviction Relief Act petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The hearing on the PCRA petition was held on April 2, 2015. This Court denied [Appellant's] amended Post-Conviction Relief Act petition.

On May 1, 2015, [Appellant] filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania of the denial of his Post-Conviction Relief Act petition. On May 4, 2015, the Court ordered that [Appellant] file a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal on or before May 25, 2015. On May 21, 2015, [Appellant's] counsel filed a Statement of Intent to file an Anders/McClendon [Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1186 (Pa. 1981).] This statement of intent to file an Anders/McClendon brief was filed in lieu of filing a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal. ["[I]n lieu of a Concise Statement, ... counsel will file an Anders/McClendon brief in this matter. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4)." PCRA Court Opinion, 6/9/15, at 4. The PCRA Court Opinion, therefore, does not address any issues.]

(Doc. 5-8, pp. 1-4, quoting PCRA Court Opinion, 6/9/15, at 1-4 (footnotes omitted).

On February 12, 2016, the Superior Court concluded that the issues raised in his PCRA lacked arguable merit. (Id. at p. 12).

Baker filed the instant petition on August 4, 2016.

II. Issues Presented for Federal Review

In Ground One, Baker challenges his sentence under the Eighth Amendment as cruel and unusual and grossly disproportionate. (Doc. 1, pp. 5, 6). In Ground Two, in addition to reiterating the challenge to the severity of his sentence, he contends that the sentence is in violation of the premise set forth in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), that any fact that increases the mandatory minimum sentence for a crime is an element that must be submitted to the jury. In Ground Three, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call certain witnesses during the hearing in which hesought to suppress evidence obtained during the search of his residence.

III. Discussion

A habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the proper mechanism for a state prisoner to challenge the "fact or duration" of his confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498-99 (1973). Baker's case is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L.No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, April 24, 1996 ("AEDPA"). 28 U.S.C. § 2254, provides, in pertinent part:

(a) The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

(b) (1) an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that -

(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State;

...

(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim—

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Section 2254 clearly sets limits on the power of a federal court to grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a state prisoner. Cullen v. Pinholster, 536 U.S. 170, 181 (2011); Glenn v. Wynder, 743 F.3d 402, 406 (3d Cir. 2014). A federal court may consider a habeas petition filed by a state prisoner only "on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). By limiting habeas relief to state...