ESCOBAR v. KAUFFMAN et al

Filing 13

ORDER THAT THE REPORT & RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED & ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE & WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING; THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; & THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO CLOSE THE CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 4/20/18. 4/20/18 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED AND MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER.(kw, )

IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOE ESCOBAR,
Petitioner,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-2157

v.

FILED
AP~ 2O2018

KEVIN KAUFFMAN, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER

s'i'TE BARl\P./JAN C''
--D , 1erk

- - ep. Clerk
AND NOW, this 20th day of April 2018, upon careful and independent consideration

of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and all related filings, and upon review of the
Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge David R.
Strawbridge, to which no objections have been filed, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED 1;

2.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
and without an evidentiary hearing;

3.

There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability2 ; and

1

On February 11, 2011, Petitioner was arrested and charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault,
recklessly endangering another person, conspiracy, possession of an instrument of crime, and possession of
unlawful body armor for a shooting he perpetrated on a crowded street in Philadelphia. Videotaped footage of
the incident showed Petitioner, who was 34 years old at the time and dressed in a bullet-proof vest, shooting
multiple times at an unarmed 15 year old boy who was fleeing a street fight. The boy suffered three gunshot
wounds, but survived. Although Petitioner fled the scene, he was later arrested and gave a full confession. On
March 27, 2012, as trial was scheduled to begin, he entered a negotiated guilty plea to attempted murder,
criminal conspiracy, and firearms charges and was sentenced to the agreed-upon aggregate sentence of 121/z to
25 years. In 2016, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed his conviction, and the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court denied review.
Petitioner now seeks federal habeas relief, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
convey to Petitioner a more favorable guilty plea offer allegedly made earlier in the case, and (2) failing to
adequately pursue a motion to compel the re-offering of that alleged earlier plea deal. Petitioner also contends
that his appellate counsel was ineffective by abandoning the latter trial counsel ineffectiveness claim. As
thoroughly explained in the R&R, these claims are either procedurally defaulted or meritless.
2

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right; there is no basis
for concluding that "reasonable jurists could debate whether ... the petition should have been resolved in a

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURh

)

I

~A~u·9J:
1

CNTHIAM:RuFE,

'

different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal citation omitted).

2