WILLIAMS v. SCI-FAYETTE et al

Filing 20

ORDERED: THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOCUMENT 13) IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOCUMENT 1) IS DENIED AND DISMISSED;A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL NOT ISSUE, IN THAT THE PETITIONER HAS NOT MADE A SUBST ANTIAL SHOWING OF THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT NOR DEMONSTRATED REASONABLE JURISTS WOULD DEBATE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THIS RULING. SEE 28U.S.C. § 2253(C)(2); SLACK V. MCDANIEL, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); AND THE CLERK OF THE COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 5/18/2022. 5/20/2022 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. NOT MAILED TO PRO SE.(sg)

Case 2:20-cv-02979-JS Document 20 Filed 05/20/22 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMIR WILLIAMS
v.
SUPERINTENDENT SCI-FAYETTE, et
al.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
No. 20-2979

ORDER
AND NOW, this 18th day of May, 2022, upon careful and independent consideration of
the petition, response, all associated briefing, and available state court records, and after de novo
review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Richard A Lloret,
to which no objections were filed1, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Document 13) is APPROVED and ADOPTED2;

1

On February 25, 2021, Judge Lloret issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending
Williams’s habeas petition be dismissed without an evidentiary hearing. On December 27, 2021,
Williams filed a request for an extension to file objections to the R&R pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). The Court granted Williams’ request for an extension on January 7, 2022, and granted
Williams until February 2, 2022 to file objections. Williams failed to file objections by that date
or in the three months thereafter.
2

On May 18, 2020, pro se Petitioner Jamir Williams filed the instant petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus while incarcerated at State Correctional Institution (SCI)—
Fayette. Williams seeks relief from his October, 2014, conviction of first-degree murder and
possession of an instrument of crime (PIC) in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas.
Williams was sentenced to a mandatory term of life in prison on the murder charge and a
consecutive term of thirty-to-sixty months in prison on the PIC charge. After filing a timely motion
for post-sentence relief that was denied by the trial court, Williams also filed a timely direct appeal
to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Superior Court denied relief and affirmed Williams’
sentence, noting that his claims were meritless, and he had waived his Confrontation Clause issues
on several claims. Williams then filed a timely pro se petition under Pennsylvania’s Post
Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), and the PCRA court appointed counsel to represent him. Williams
requested that counsel be removed and sought to proceed pro se. On July 8, 2019, the PCRA court
dismissed Williams’s petition, and Williams sought to file an untimely appeal to the Pennsylvania
Superior Court.

Case 2:20-cv-02979-JS Document 20 Filed 05/20/22 Page 2 of 2

2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document 1) is DENIED AND
DISMISSED;
3. A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT issue, in that the Petitioner has not made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right nor demonstrated reasonable
jurists would debate the correctness of the procedural aspects of this ruling. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); and
4. The Clerk of the Court shall mark this case CLOSED for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:

/s/_Juan R. Sánchez_
Juan R. Sánchez, C.J.

Williams’s present habeas petition seeks relief on six grounds: (1) his Confrontation Clause
right was violated because he was limited in his ability to cross-examine Emil Williams at trial
regarding his motivation for entering a plea agreement with the government; (2) the trial court
erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement to police because his mental illness caused
him to not understand his Miranda waiver; (3) his Confrontation Clause right was violated when
police officers were permitted to testify to a description of the alleged shooter by Nathan Burrell,
who did not appear at trial; (4) his Confrontation Clause right was violated when a police officer
was permitted to testify that unnamed witnesses at the scene of the crime refused to cooperate with
police; (5) his due process rights were violated when perjured witness statements from Kandie
Meinhart and Emil Williams were used to obtain his conviction; and (6) ineffective assistance of
counsel for failing to appeal his first through fourth claims to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and
for failing to raise his fifth claim on direct appeal.
This Court agrees with the Report & Recommendation’s findings. The first, third and fifth
claims are procedurally defaulted. The second and fourth claims were reasonably resolved by the
state courts. Lastly, Williams’s sixth claim is procedurally defaulted and not cognizable on habeas
review. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Report & Recommendation.