ALVARADO v. WINGARD et al

Filing 24

ORDERED THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE OBJECTIONS TO THE R&R ARE WITHOUT MERIT ARE OVERRULED; PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED ETC. AND THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS MATTER CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE NITZA I QUINONES ALEJANDRO ON 12/16/19. 12/17/19 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PETITIONER AND EMAILED.(jaa, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
OSCAR ALVARADO
Petitioner, pro se

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 17-3283

v.

TREVOR WINGARD, et al.
Respondents

ORDER
AND NOW, this 16 th day of December 2019, upon consideration of the prose petition
for writ of habeas corpus filed by Petitioner Oscar Alvarado ("Petitioner") pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, [ECF l], Respondents' response to the petition, [ECF 13], Petitioner's reply, [ECF 16],

the state court record , the Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") issued by the Honorable
Jacob P. Hart, United States Magistrate Judge ("the Magistrate Judge"), recommending that the
Petition be denied, [ECF 17], and Petitioner's pro se objections to the R&R, [ECF 22, 23], and
after conducting a de nova review of the objections, it is hereby ORDERED that:
I.

The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2.

The objections to the R&R are without merit and are OVERRULED ;1

Following a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of second-degree murder, robbery, and carrying
a firearm without a license, and sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment. In his habeas
petition, Petitioner asserts multiple claims arising out of his trial and appellate counsels' failure to
adequately argue and/or preserve his challenge to the admissibility of a statement by a non-testifying codefendant as violative of the Confrontation Clause. The Magistrate Judge issued a thoroughly wellreasoned twenty-nine page R&R, in which each of Petitioner's claims were addressed and rejected. The
Magistrate Judge found that the bulk of Petitioner' s claims were procedurally defaulted .
In his objections to the R&R, Petitioner focuses on the Magistrate Judge's findings with respect
to his Bruton claim. In Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S . 123 ( 1968), the Supreme Court held that the
introduction of a statement of a non-testifying co-defendant which implicates the defendant by name
violates the Confrontation Clause. Id. at 126. Though the Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner had
adequately supported a Bruton claim, the Magistrate Judge concluded that, in light of the other
overwhelming evidence of Petitioner' s guilt, the error was harmless and, therefore, Petitioner had not
shown the actual prejudice necessary to overcome the procedural default of the claim. ln now

3.

Petitioner' s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, [ECF 1], is DENIED; and

4.

No probable cause exists to issue a certificate of appealability. 2

The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this matter CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:

Isl Nitza I. Ouinones Aleiandro
NITZA I. QUINONES ALEJANDRO
Judge, United States District Court

challenging the Magistrate Judge ' s findings , Petitioner merely repeats and rehashes arguments made in
his petition and original filings in support. As such, Petitioner's objections are nothing more than an
attempt to re-litigate arguments raised in his original filings. This Court finds that the Magistrate Judge
correctly concluded that the Bruton violation was harmless because the overwhelming evidence suppo1ted
the jury ' s guilty verdict. This Court has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de nova and finds
that the Magistrate Judge committed no error in the analysis of Petitioner's claims. Accordingly,
Petitioner' s objections are overruled, and the R&R is adopted and approved in its entirety.
2

A district court may issue a certificate of appealability only upon "a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right. " 28 U.S .C. § 2253(c). A petitioner must "demonstrate that reasonable
jurists would find the district court' s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 , 484 (2000); Lambert v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 210, 230 (3d Cir. 2004). For the
reason s set forth, this Court concludes that no probable cause exists to issue such a certificate in this
action because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of any constitutional right.
Petitioner has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would find this Court's assessment "debatable or
wron g." Slack, 529 U .S. at 484 . Accordingly, there is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of
appealability .

2