HALES v. COLEMAN et al

Filing 16

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 15 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Barbara Rothstein on 1/12/2016. (nk)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

ANTHONY HALES,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
)
BRIAN COLEMAN, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
____________________________________)

CASE NO.

14-181 Erie

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

12
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

13
14

The Court, having reviewed the petition for writ of habeas corpus, the Report and

15

Recommendation of the Honorable Susan P. Baxter, United States Magistrate Judge, and the

16

balance of the record, does hereby find that:

17
18

(1)

The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2)

There is no basis to disturb the state court decisions to deny relief under

19
AEDPA’s deferential standards. Specifically, there is no basis to disturb the trial
20
21

court’s finding that Petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege

22

against self-incrimination. The trial court held a suppression hearing and made

23

credibility assessments based on testimony at that hearing. The trial court properly

24

applied the “totality of the circumstances” test to the events surrounding

25

Petitioner’s confessions and interrogation in determining whether Petitioner’s
decision to waive his Miranda rights was uncoerced and made with the requisite
1

level of comprehension. Petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating that

1

the trial court’s decision was contrary to clearly established Federal law, as

2
3

determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. Further, Petitioner failed

4

to establish that the trial court’s decision was “so lacking in justification that there

5

was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any

6

possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103

7
2011). Therefore, the decision was not an “unreasonable application of clearly
8
established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United

9
10

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). In addition, the Court finds that Petitioner’s

11

ineffective assistance of counsel claim is procedurally defaulted. Petition failed to

12

exhaust his state court remedies with respect to this claim and he failed to

13

establish good cause for the default. Finally, Petitioner failed to file any objection to

14

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

15
(3)

Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice;

16
17
18

The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to send copies of this Order to
Petitioner, Respondent, and to Judge Baxter.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

DATED this 12th day of January, 2016.

21

A

22

Barbara Jacobs Rothstein
U.S. District Court Judge

23
24
25

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

3