ROGERS v. MAHALLY et al

Filing 34

ORDER THAT PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED; THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS GRANTED; PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR ADDENDUM AND CONSOLIDATE ARGUMENT AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF (D OC. NO. 27) IS DENIED AS MOOT. WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS OF THIS ORDER THE COMMONWEALTH SHALL VACATE PETITIONER'S CONVICTION AND SHALL AFFORD PETITIONER A NEW SENTENCING HEARING ON HIS 10/28/91 CONVICTIONS FOR ONE COUNT OF POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE AND ONE COUNT OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY; THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 2/13/17. 2/14/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
ERIC ROGERS,
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
LAWRENCE MAHALLY, et al.,
:
Respondents.
:
__________________________________________:

CIVIL ACTION

No. 14-6498

ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of February, 2017, upon careful and independent consideration
of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Sandra Moore Wells, and Petitioner’s Objections thereto, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
1.

Petitioner’s objections (Doc. No. 29) are OVERRULED;1

2.

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 28) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED;

3.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED;

4.

Petitioner’s “Motion for Addendum and Consolidated Argument and Facts in
Support of” (Doc. No. 27) is DENIED as moot;

1

Petitioner raises only one objection that is relevant to a claim in his petition. He argues that
because he was arrested on the New Jersey side of the Walt Whitman Bridge and then in jail in
New Jersey before making bail, Pennsylvania courts were required to hold an extradition or
transfer hearing to hear the case in Pennsylvania. This claim is without merit. In personam
jurisdiction is established by a party's presence, however it is obtained, even if by “forcible
compulsion.” Frisbee v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (1931); see also Shack v. Attorney Gen. of State
of Pennsylvania, 776 F.2d 1170, 1172 (3d Cir. 1985). Petitioner’s other objections are unrelated
to arguments made in his petition and I therefore do not need to address them.

5.

Within sixty (60) days of this Order, the Commonwealth shall VACATE
Petitioner’s conviction for violating the Pennsylvania Corrupt Organization Act
(“PACOA”), 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 911 et seq. and it shall afford Petitioner a
new sentencing hearing on his October 28, 1991 convictions for one count of
possession with intent to distribute and one count of criminal conspiracy; and

6.

The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg
____________________________
MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, J.