Chambers v. Wingard et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)There is also no indication that Petitioner has been granted leave to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Given those cir cumstances, under the standards announced in McCleskey and the requirements set forth in § 2244(a), Chambers' pending case is a second or successive petition which cannot be entertained by this Court. An appropriate Order will enter.Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 4/14/15. (cc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DI STRICT OF PENNSYLVAN I A

MAURICE CHAMBERS,
Petitioner

v.

CIVIL NO. 3:CV-15-653

WARDEN TREVOR WINGARD,

(Judge Conaboy)

FILED
SCRANTON

Respondent

APR 1 4 2015
MEMORANDUM

PER _~~?;j"L~ ___
_
DEPUTY CLERK

Background

This Q£Q se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 was initiated by Maurice Chambers, an inmate at
the State Correctional Institution, Somerset,
Somerset).

Pennsylvania (SCI-

The required filing fee has been paid.

Named as

Respondent is SC I -Somerset Superintendent Trevor Wingard.
Following a jury trial in the Luzerne County Court of Common
Pleas, Chambers was convicted of second degree murder,
and two

(2) counts of criminal conspiracy.l

robbery,

On December 5,

1997,

Petitioner was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment.
By Memorandum dated May 20,

1999, the Superior Court

affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence.

See Commonwealth

During a drug transaction involving the purchase of one (1)
ounce of marijuana, Chambers shot the victim Paul Garman in the
back of the head.
Following the shooting, a large bag containing
marijuana was taken from the residence.

Y....... Chambers,

742 A.2d 201 (Pa. Super. 1999) (Table).

A request

allowance of appeal was subsequently denied by the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

See Commonwealth v. Chambers,

A.2d 466 (Pa. 2000) (Table).

Thereafter, the Un

Supreme Court denied Chambers'

749

ed States

ition for writ of certiorari.

See Chambers v. Pennsylvania, 531 U.S. 853 (2000).
Chambers then sought relief under Pennsylvania's Post
Convict

Relief Act {PCRA).2

petition on June 12, 2003.
relief.
2004).

The trial court denied

The Superior Court likewise denied

See Commonwealth v. Chambers, 852 A.2d 1197
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied a

allowance of appeal.

PCRA

(Pa. Super.

it ion for

Commonwealth v. Chambers, 871 A.2d 188

(Pa. 2005) (Table).
Petitioner next filed a petition
relief pursuant to

§

2254 with this Court.

Rozum, Civil No. 3:CV-05 1634.
ent

federal habeas corpus
See Chambers v.

Therein, Chambers claimed

lement to federal habeas corpus relief on the grounds that:

(I) the underlying criminal indictment on

set forth a general

2
One of
avenues for reI f in the Pennsylvania legal
system is collateral relief under the PCRA, "which permits motions
for post-conviction collateral relief for allegations of error,
including ineffective assistance of counsel, unlawfully induced
guilty pleas, improper obstruction of rights to appeal by
Commonwealth officials, and violation of constitutional
provisions."
941 F.2d 246, 251 (3d Cir.
1991) .

2

iled to allege every element of second

count of homicide and
degree murder

violation of the principles announced in

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and Jones v. United
~~=='

526 U.S. 227 (1999);

(2) under the Apprendi and Jones

standards, the insufficient criminal indictment as

scribed

above caused Petitioner's sentence to be improperly enhanced to a
term of life imprisonment;

(3) Chambers' robbery conviction

violated due process in that he was charged with the robbery of
an illegal substance;
there was no

(4) since the evidence established that

ft, the robbery conviction and second degree

murder convictions are unsupported.

By Memorandum and Order

dated October 26, 2006, this Court denied Chambers' prior

§

2254

petition on the merits.
Petitioner asserts that he sought PCRA reI
time in 2007.

See Doc. 1,

~

11.

His

being untimely on October 20, 2009.

f for a second

ition was dismissed as
See Doc. 2, p. 8.

Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the dismissal.
Commonwealth v. Chambers, 11 A.3d 1026 (Pa. Super.

The

See
2010).

pennsylvani Supreme Court denied Petitioner's appeal.

The

See

Commonwealth v. Chambers, 21 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2011).
r the third t

Chambers sought PCRA relief

which was filed on April 24, 2012 and dismiss
2012.

See

. at p. 9.

in an action
on December 10,

The Pennsylvania Superior quashed an

3

appeal as being untimely and his petition for allowance of appeal
was denied by the Pennsylvan

Supreme Court on October 17, 2013.

Commonwealth v. Chambers, 77 A.3d 1258 (Pa. Super 2013).
led a fourth PCRA action which was

Petitioner

Doc. 2, p. 24.

untimely on March 17, 2014.

smissed as

The Pennsylvania

Superior Court affirmed that decision on October 7, 2014.
id.

See

A petition for allowance of appeal was denied by the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court on February 17, 2015.

See id. at p.

22.
In his pending second

§

2254 action Petitioner argues that

he is entitled to federal habeas corpus relief because

the jury

was not given an instruction on the charge of theft by unlawful
taking.

id. at

relies in part on

~

12.

In support of his claim Petitioner

Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151

(2013) .
Discussion

28 U.S.C.

§

2244(a) and Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases in the United States
U.S.C. foIl.

§

2254

strict Courts, 28

(1977), set forth the pertinent authority for

3 Alleyne held that any fact that increases the mandatory
minimum sentence is an element which must be presented to the jury
and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Third Circuit Court of
Appeals has held that
cannot be retroactively applied to
cases on collateral appeal.
See United States v. Winkelman, 746 F.
3d 134, 136 (3d Cir. March 26, 2014).

4

determination as to whether second or successive § 2254 habeas
titions may be reviewed by fe

corpus

Graham v. Warden,
13, 2009)

(§

ral district courts.

FCI-Allenwood, 2009 WL 326010 *1 (3d Cir. Oct.

2244 (a) bars second or success

challenges to the

Habeas Corpus Rules

legality of detention). Rule 9(b} of
provides:

Before presenting a second or successive
ition, the
petitioner must obta
an
r from the appropriate
court of appeals authorizing the district court to
consider the
ition as requi
by 28 U.S.C. §
2244 (b) (3)and (4).
Section 2244 (3) (A) provides:
Before a second or successive application pe
tted
by this section is filed in the
strict court, the
applicant shall move in the appropriate court of
appeals for an order authorizing
district court to
consi r the application.
Chambers clearly filed a prior

§

2254 action, Civil No.

3:CV-05 1634, in this district court regarding the same
conviction and sentence which is the subject of his pe
action.

Since all of the c

2254 action were addres

ng

ims raised in Chambers' earlier's §
and denied on their merits, the

pending matter is clearly a second or successive petition.
The pending Petition fails to show that Chambers' instant
claim

Ils within the statutory exceptions for pursuing a second

or success

habeas corpus petition.

5

There is also no indication that Petitioner has been granted
leave to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
those circumstances, under the standards announced

Given

McCleskey

and the requirements set forth in § 2244(a), Chambers' pending
case is a second or success
entertained by this Court.

petition which cannot be
An appropriate Order will enter.4

United States District

DATED: APRIL

/4 ':"GOIS

Petitioner if he so chooses may file an application for
leave to
le a second or successive habeas corpus petition with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
6