SANTIAGO v. FOLINO et al

Filing 17

ORDER THAT THE PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED. THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED. THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 12/16/13. 12/16/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(lvj, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RAFAEL SANTIAGO,
Petitioner
vs.
LOUIS FOLINO, et al.,
Respondents

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 12-4065

ORDER
AND NOW, this

16th

day of December, 2013, upon careful and independent

consideration of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and after review of the thorough and
well-reasoned Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Lynne A. Sitarski, United States
Magistrate Judge, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED.1

2.

The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED AND ADOPTED.

3.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

4.

There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lawrence F. Stengel
LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, J.

After a de novo review, I find the petitioner’s objections to be of no merit. Judge Sitarski correctly
found that the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was properly exhausted in the state
courts. Contrary to the petitioner’s objection, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania disposed of this issue
based on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
See Commonwealth v. Santiago, 444 EDA 2010, *4 (Super. Ct. 2012). The court conducted the inquiry
outlined in Strickland in determining that trial counsel was not ineffective. Id. Further, Judge Sitarski
reviewed the challenged prosecutorial remarks, and indicated that the Superior Court had used the same
standard used by federal courts in reviewing a prosecutor’s allegedly improper remarks at trial in finding
that the prosecutor had not engaged in misconduct. Judge Sitarski properly gave deference to the state
court’s adjudication of the petitioner’s claim. Finally, there is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of
appealability.
1