Spotz v. Wetzel et al

Filing 13

ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petnr's 7 Motion to Stay the Execution is GRANTED and any state proceedings for the execution of Petnr is STAYED pending disposition of the anticipated petn for a writ os habeas corpus or until further order of court. Signed by Chief Judge Yvette Kane on Dec. 20, 2012. (sc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARK NEWTON SPOTZ,
Petitioner

:
:
:
v.
:
:
JOHN E. WETZEL, Acting Secretary,
:
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al., :
Respondents
:

No. 1:12-cv-01327
(Chief Judge Kane)
THIS IS A CAPITAL CASE

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Petitioner Mark Newton Spotz, a state inmate under sentence of death, moves the Court
for a stay of execution in order to allow his federal habeas corpus counsel a meaningful
opportunity to file a Section 2254 petition on his behalf. (Doc. No. 7.) In light of clear
precedents established by the United States Supreme Court, the Court will grant the motion.
I.

BACKGROUND
Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and related charges in the Court of

Common Pleas of York County in 1996. On August 22, 2000, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and death sentence. Commonwealth v. Spotz, 756 A.2d 1139
(Pa. 2000). Petitioner’s timely petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court
was denied on March 19, 2001. Spotz v. Pennsylvania, 532 U.S. 932 (2001). After Petitioner’s
petition for post-conviction collateral relief was dismissed by the York County Court of
Common Pleas, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the York County Court’s decision on
June 26, 2012. Commonwealth v. Spotz, 47 A.3d 63 (Pa. 2012).
On July 9, 2012, Petitioner moved the Court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
for appointment of federal habeas corpus counsel. (Doc. No. 1.) The Court granted the motion,
and directed Petitioner to file a petition for habeas corpus relief on or before January 14, 2013.

(Doc. No. 6.) On November 14, 2012, Petitioner moved the Court for a stay of execution,
informing the Court that the Governor of Pennsylvania signed a warrant for the imposition of the
death penalty upon Petitioner, and his execution is presently scheduled for January 8, 2013.
(Doc. No. 7.) Respondents filed a brief in opposition on December 17, 2012, to which Petitioner
filed a sur reply on December 18, 2012. (Doc. Nos. 11, 12.) Petitioner’s motion for a stay of
execution is now ripe for disposition.
II.

DISCUSSION
A federal court is authorized to appoint counsel for an indigent prisoner seeking to set

aside a death sentence by means of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Section 2254. See 18
U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2).1 Once a capital defendant successfully invokes his right to appointed
counsel, a federal court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2251 to enter a stay of execution
pending the resolution of his application for Section 2254 relief. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S.
849, 858 (1994); see also Christy v. Horn, 115 F.3d 201, 203 (3d Cir. 1997). If counsel is not
afforded a meaningful opportunity to research and present the petitioner’s habeas claims prior to
the scheduled date of execution, the Court is obligated to stay the execution, as “approving the
execution of a [petitioner] before his petition is decided on the merits would clearly be
improper.” McFarland, 512 U.S. at 858 (citation and internal brackets omitted).
Here, Petitioner is scheduled to be executed on January 8, 2013, six days before his
Section 2254 petition is due to be filed. (Doc. No. 6.) The Court is cognizant of the fact that

1

In McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 867 (1994), the Supreme Court held that “a ‘postconviction proceeding’ within the meaning of [Section 3599(a)(2)] is commenced by the filing of
a death row defendant’s . . . motion requesting the appointment of counsel” for his federal habeas
corpus proceeding.”
2

Petitioner’s counsel must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to review the voluminous state
court record and to prepare the petition. Moreover, Petitioner’s counsel has been operating
under the belief that the petition need not be filed before January 14, 2013, pursuant to the
Court’s August 1, 2012 order. (Doc. No. 6.) Under such circumstances, it would be inequitable
to deny Petitioner’s motion for a stay of execution. By entering a stay of execution at this
juncture, the Court emphasizes that it is not reaching the constitutional merits of Petitioner’s
habeas petition. Rather, the Court is merely following the clear directives of the Supreme Court
set out in McFarland.
ACCORDINGLY, on this 20th day of December 2012, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
THAT Petitioner’s motion for a stay of execution (Doc. No. 7) is GRANTED, and, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2251, any state proceedings for the execution of Petitioner are STAYED pending
disposition of the anticipated petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, or
until further order of the Court.

S/ Yvette Kane
Yvette Kane, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

3