Weathers v. Kauffman

RUSSELL WEATHERS, Petitioner v. KEVIN KAUFFMAN, et al., Respondents

No. 1:20-cv-1098

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

January 25, 2021

(Judge Rambo)

MEMORANDUM

On June 30, 2020, pro se Petitioner Russell Weathers ("Petitioner"), who is presently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania ("SCI Huntingdon"), initiated the above-captioned action by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner filed a memorandum of law in support of his § 2254 petition on November 3, 2020. (Doc. No. 12.) Respondents filed their response on November 23, 2020. (Doc. No. 14.) Petitioner filed a traverse on December 14, 2020. (Doc. No. 16.) Accordingly, Petitioner's § 2254 petition is ripe for disposition.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

On February 11, 2015, following a jury trial in the Court of Common Pleas for Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, Petitioner was found guilty of two counts of aggravated assault and one count of simple assault. (Doc. No. 14-1 at 3.) The Superior Court of Pennsylvania set forth the background of the case as follows:

We set forth the following pertinent factual and procedural history of this case. In 2013, [Petitioner] was charged with two counts of aggravated assault and one count of simple assault, arising from [Petitioner's] August 1, 2013 physical attack on his girlfriend, Abigail Shaw.

Shaw and [Petitioner] had become involved in a romantic relationship beginning in August 2012. As the relationship progressed, around November 2012, the two moved in together at [a] South 2nd Street apartment along with [] Shaw's three children.

Shaw testified at trial [as] to her version of the relationship with [Petitioner] and the events of August 1, 2013. [] Shaw described her relationship with [Petitioner] as initially good until the end of November 2012, when she encountered her first bout of violence with him.

Trial Court Opinion, 11/23/2015, at 3-4 (citations omitted). Shaw testified that [Petitioner continued to abuse her regularly and, by April 2013, "the assaults became daily occurrences." Id. at 5.

The incident that gave rise to the charges in this matter occurred in the early morning hours of August 1, 2013. [] Shaw had returned from her classes for the day where she found [Petitioner] listening to music on his iPad. She stated that around 7:00 p.m. he had gotten emotional while listening to music that he used to enjoy with his deceased mother so, he stormed out of the house saying he was going to buy cigarettes.

Later, around 9:00 p.m., [] Shaw took her children to the grocery store but when she returned, she realized that she had locked herself out of the apartment. She placed a note on the front door stating [that] she was locked out and attempted to find a place to stay in the meantime. After being unsuccessful at finding a friend who was home, Shaw returned to the apartment to wait in [her] car for [Petitioner] to return. She later awoke to a cab pulling in behind her parked car with [Petitioner] in the front passenger seat. Shaw explained that she knew it was [Petitioner] because they used cabs regularly and, since [Petitioner] and the cab driver were friends, he would ride in the passenger seat. [] Shaw approached the passenger door saying she hadbeen locked out when [Petitioner']s arm came out of the open window and, as he said "bitch, you're playing me," he smacked her head off the front hood of the vehicle. [Petitioner] then got out of the car, grabbed Shaw by the neck and slammed her to the ground while her 8 year old son was watching. As she was on her back, he smacked her head against the street and punched her in the face while repeatedly calling her a bitch. [] Shaw remembers [Petitioner] leaving in the cab and then driving [herself] to Harrisburg Hospital.

On that same night, Mark Cicak [] was returning home from his employment from UPS in Harrisburg. He had worked the night shift[,] which usually ended between 2:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. While driving in the far left lane on South 2nd Street around 3:00 a.m., [] Cicak saw a couple on the sidewalk to his left against a parked car, who he thought were in an intimate embrace until the man threw the woman to the ground and began assaulting her. [] Cicak immediately called 911. He then circled the nearby blocks so he could driver past on Second Street again. He reported that the male was wearing a white T-shirt, jeans and a black hat. When [] Cicak arrived back on Second Street, he saw the same pair but now the assault was occurring in the street with the male punching and kicking the female. At all times, Cicak was on the telephone with 911 describing the events he was witnessing. He passed them and looped around a third time when he saw the assault stop and the male jump into the passenger side of a cab and leave. [] Cicak tried to follow the cab straight on Second Street to obtain a license plate number; however, he was unsuccessful. He then circled back a third time to ascertain the condition of the female but, when he arrived at the area where the assault took place, she was gone. After one more loop to see if she was walking along Second Street, he encountered the police at the scene of the assault. [] Cicak stopped to speak with the police to relay what he had witnessed.

Id. at 6-7 (citation omitted).

Once Shaw arrived at the hospital, she received medical attention for her injuries. It was determined that Shaw's nose was fractured in three places. Id. at 8. At the hospital, Shaw spoke to police and identified [Petitioner] as her attacker. Id. at 9. However, in the months that followed, Shaw, indecisive as to whether or not to continue or end the relationship, stayed in contact with [Petitioner] and eventually recantedher identification of [Petitioner] as her attacker. Id. at 12-13. Subsequently, Shaw cut off contact with [Petitioner]. Id. at 13.

At trial, Shaw identified [Petitioner] as the man who attacked her. Additionally, Cicak testified that shortly after the incident, police contacted him to discuss the assault he had witnessed. Id. at 7-8. Cicak met with police and identified [Petitioner] from a photo array as the man he saw attacking a woman on Second Street. Id.

Appellant testified on his own behalf to present his version of events. At the time of the August 1, 201[3] incident, [Petitioner] was working for a painting contractor. He testified that on the night beginning July 31, 201[3] and leading into the morning of August 1, 201[3], he was working with an individual named Mike to finish painting apartment units at hallways at the Camp Hill Plaza Apartments. [Petitioner] said that they were up against a deadline so the two decided to stay late and finish the painting.

[Petitioner] had seen [] Shaw earlier in the day when she came to the job site asking to trade in the rental car they had been driving for a different one. He left work for a time to travel with Shaw to change rental vehicles. [Petitioner] stated that after the cars were traded he called his co-worker[, Anthony Moore,] to pick him up and bring him back to the work site. From work he went back to Mike's apartment in downtown Harrisburg for a break then returned to the job site to finish painting until approximately 2:00 a.m. [Petitioner] then spent the night at Mike's place.

(Doc. No. 14-11 at 1-2.) On March 20, 2015, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to serve a minimum of 108 months and a maximum of 240 months' incarceration. (Doc. No. 14-1 at 3.) Petitioner filed a post-trial motion to exclude evidence of a 911 call from 2012 as well as other incidents of abuse Shaw allegedly suffered at the hands of Petitioner. (Doc. No. 14-3 at 3.) That motion was denied by the trial court. (Id.)

Petitioner subsequently appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, arguing that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his post-trial motion and (2) the evidence was insufficient to convict him of aggravated assault. (Id. at 3-4.) On August 22, 2016, the Superior Court affirmed Petitioner's judgment of sentence. (Doc. No. 14-5 at 1.) On February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied Petitioner's petition for allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Weathers, 678 MAL 2016 (Pa.).

On February 28, 2018, Petitioner filed a pro se Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA") petition in the Court of Common Pleas for Dauphin County. (Doc. No. 14-6.) Petitioner noted that he did not want a lawyer to represent him. (Id. at 3.) The PCRA court conducted a Grazier¹ hearing and concluded that Petitioner had made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right to counsel during PCRA proceedings. (Doc. No. 14-8 at 121.) Petitioner filed an amended PCRA petition on June 13, 2018. (Id. at 122.) In his PCRA petition, Petitioner raised the following claims for relief: (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to subpoena alibi witnesses Gene the Harrisburg cab driver and Anthony Moore; (2) counsel was ineffective and "failed to challenge the District Attorney of committing fraud on the Court by allowing fabricated statements and testimonies of the Commonwealth witnesses and contradicting statements"; (3) the District Attorney's Officeintimidated witnesses; and (4) trial counsel failed to "present the prison conversation of Ms. Shaw being bullied by the District Attorney's Office." (Id.) In his Amended PCRA petition, Petitioner asserted: (1) he was denied a fair trial because Shaw declared that he had not caused her injury or damage to the apartment; (2) Shaw repeated those statements in her testimony during Petitioner's preliminary hearing; (3) Petitioner "found ex parte hearings"; and (4) "inappropriate comments by the Commonwealth." (Id.) On August 29, 2018, the PCRA court issued a memorandum order and a notice that it intended to dismiss Petitioner's PCRA petition without a hearing. (Doc. No. 14-11 at 3.) Petitioner responded to the notice, and the PCRA court...