Otto v. Curley

STEVEN D. OTTO, Petitioner

v.MICHAEL CURLEY, et al., Respondents

CIVIL NO. 1:CV-10-2193

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Dated: February 21, 2012.

(Judge Rambo)

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Steven Otto, an inmate currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution in Albion, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Albion"), initiated this action with the filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on October 25, 2010, as amended January 13, 2011. (Doc. 10.) Petitioner is challenging his 2004 judgment of sentence imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania ("trial court" or "Dauphin County court"). For the reasons that follow, the petition will be denied.

I. Background

On July 9, 2004, Petitioner was found guilty of rape by forcible compulsion, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse by forcible compulsion, sexual assault, aggravated indecent assault without consent, indecent assault without consent, second degree robbery, and simple assault following a jury trial in the Dauphin County court.(Doc. 17-1 at 86-87 (Respondents' Reproduced Record).) The Pennsylvania Superior Court summarized the relevant facts as follows:

The victim was a 21-year-old undergraduate student at York College in York, Pennsylvania. She testified that at approximately 6:00 a.m. on the morning of January 1, 2004, [Petitioner] entered her bedroom. The victim did not know [Petitioner] and had never seen him before. [Petitioner was carrying a knife in his hand. He instructed the victim to be quiet and to remain in her bed.

[Petitioner] put the knife to the victim's throat and told her not to make any noise. Terrified, the victim offered to give [Petitioner] "everything" if he would let her be okay. The victim found $20 and gave it to [Petitioner], who became angry. The victim then found more money in the drawer beside her bed, and gave [Petitioner] that money as well. At one point, the victim sobbed out loud; [Petitioner] struck her hard on the side of her face. The victim blacked out momentarily.

[Petitioner] ordered the victim to take off all her clothes and proceeded to rape her. Before he left the house, [Petitioner] demanded the victim's driver's license or identification. [Petitioner] remarked on the victim's age and name, and told her his name, "Steven Otto." [Petitioner] told the victim they would see each other again.

[Petitioner] left with the victim's money and driver's license. The DNA profile obtained from [Petitioner]'s blood sample matched the DNA profile obtained from semen recovered from the victim after the incident. The victim positively identified [Petitioner] as the perpetrator.

(Doc. 17-2 at 71-72; Commonwealth v. Otto, 754 MDA 2005 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar 15, 2006)). On December 3, 2004, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to an aggregate term of imprisonment of twenty (20) to forty (40) years. Petitioner was also found tobe a sexually violent predator. Petitioner filed post-sentence motions, and by memorandum opinion dated March 11, 2005, the trial court denied those motions. On December 4, 2006, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief under Pennsylvania's Post-Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 9541 et seq. Thereafter, the PCRA court appointed counsel to represent Petitioner and held a PCRA hearing on April 5, 2007. On that same date, the PCRA court denied Petitioner's requested relief. Petitioner timely filed a counseled appeal with the Pennsylvania Superior Court. While a decision was pending, Petitioner raised additional matters pro se. As a result, on July 15, 2008, the Superior Court directed Petitioner's counsel to file a petition for remand in order to evaluate Petitioner's claims. On August 4, 2008, the Superior Court remanded the matter back to the PCRA court for appointment of new counsel in order to file an amended PCRA petition on Petitioner's behalf. The PCRA court appointed counsel who then filed two supplements to the PCRA petition on October 28, 2008 and November 17, 2008, respectively. On December 2, 2008, the PCRA court held a second PCRA hearing at which time it denied Petitioner's requested relief. On December 9, 2008, the PCRA court directed Petitioner to file a statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b). Petitioner filed thestatement on December 31, 2008. Thereafter, on April 16, 2009, the PCRA court affirmed the denial of PCRA relief. On June 22, 2009, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal in the Superior Court. The Superior Court, in turn, affirmed Petitioner's conviction and denial of PCRA relief on February 18, 2010. Petitioner then filed a petition for allocatur in Pennsylvania's Supreme Court on March 22, 2010. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur on August 12, 2010.

Petitioner timely filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 25, 2010 (Doc. 1), as amended on January 13, 2011, (Doc. 10). He also filed a supporting memorandum of law. (Doc. 11.) After receiving an extension of time in which to respond to the petition, (see Doc. 16), Respondents filed a response to the petition on April 6, 2011, (Doc. 17). Petitioner filed his reply brief on April 25, 2011, (Doc. 18), with a supplement filed on October 28, 2011, (Doc. 23). Thus, this matter is now ripe for disposition.

II. Standard of Review - AEDPA Merits Review¹

Section 2254(d) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides, in pertinent part, that an application for a writ of habeas corpus premised on a claim previously adjudicated on the merits in state court shall not be granted unless:

(1) [the decision] 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) [the decision] 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(d). To establish that the decision was contrary to federal law, "it is not sufficient for the petitioner to show merely that his interpretation of Supreme Court precedent is more plausible than the state court's; rather, the petitioner must demonstrate that Supreme Court precedent requires the contrary outcome." Matteo v. Superintendent, 171 F.3d 877, 888 (3d Cir. 1999) (emphasis in original). Similarly, a federal court will only find a state court decision to be an unreasonable application of federal law if the decision, "evaluated objectively and on the merits, resulted in anoutcome that cannot reasonably be justified under existing Supreme Court precedent." Id. at 890.

Further, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), a federal court is required to presume that a state court's findings of fact are correct. A petitioner may only rebut this presumption with clear and convincing evidence of the state court's error. § 2254(e)(1); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 341 (2003) (stating that the clear and convincing standard in § 2254(e)(1) applies to factual issues, whereas the unreasonable application standard of § 2254(d)(2) applies to factual decisions); Matteo, 171 F.3d at 888; Thomas v. Varner, 428 F.3d 492, 497-98 (3d Cir. 2005). This presumption of correctness applies to both explicit and implicit findings of fact. Campbell v. Vaughn, 209 F.3d 280, 285-86 (3d Cir. 2000). Consequently, a habeas petitioner "must clear a high hurdle before a federal court will set aside any of the state court's factual findings." Mastracchio v. Vose, 274 F.3d 590, 598 (1st Cir. 2000).

Like the "unreasonable application" prong of paragraph (1), a factual determination should be adjudged "unreasonable" under paragraph (2) only if the court finds that a rational jurist could not reach the same finding on the basis of the evidence in the record. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2); Porter v. Horn, 276 F. Supp. 2d 278,296 (E.D. Pa. 2003); see also Torres v. Prunty, 223 F.3d 1103, 1107-08 (9th Cir. 2000); cf. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 317 (1979). "This provision essentially requires the district court to step into the shoes of an appellate tribunal, examining the record below to ascertain whether sufficient evidence existed to support the findings of fact material to the conviction." Breighner v. Chesney, 301 F. Supp. 2d 354, 364 (M.D. Pa. 2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) and (f)² ). Mere disagreement with an inferential leap or credibility judgment of the state court is insufficient to permit relief. Porter, 276 F. Supp. 2d at 296; see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 410 (2000); Hurtado v. Tucker, 245 F.3d 7, 16 (1st Cir. 2001). Only when the finding lacks evidentiary support in the state court record or is plainly controverted by evidence therein should the federal habeas court overturn a state court's factual determination. Porter, 276 F. Supp. 2d at 296; see also Williams, 529 U.S. at 408-10.

Further, the United States Supreme Court has clarified the test a district court must apply before granting relief where the court finds constitutional error:

[I]n § 2254 proceedings a court must assess the prejudicial impact of constitutional error in a state-court criminal trial under the "substantial and injurious effect" standard set forth in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507U.S. 619, 113 S. Ct. 1710, 123 L. Ed. 2d 353 (1993), whether or not the state appellate court recognized the error and reviewed it for harmlessness under the "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" standard set forth in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S. Ct. 824, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 (1967).

Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112, 121-22 (2007). Thus, even if the court concludes that constitutional error occurred in the state court, the court may not grant relief unless the error "had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict." Brecht, 507 U.S. at 631; see also Bond v. Beard, 539 F.3d 256, 276 (3d Cir. 2008).

III. Discussion

In his petition, Petitioner makes the following...