FULLER v. WENEROWICZ et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that the Petition is dismissed; that the Report and Recommendation 12 , is adopted as the opinion of the Court. A certificate of appealability is denied as jurists of reason would not disagree with the disposition of this case. The Clerk is to mark the case closed. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 3/6/14. (jg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN F U L L E R , )
Petitioner,
)
)

vs.

)
)
)
MICHAEL WENEROWICZ; THE
)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE )
OF PENNSYLVANIA,
)
Respondents. )

Civil A:tion No. 13-535
Judge l'.fora Barry Fischerl
Magistrate Judge Maureen P..Kelly

MEMORANDUM ORnER
The above-captioned pro se Petition Under 28 U.Sc. § 2254 for Writ ofI-lat,eas Corpus
(the "Petition") was received by the Clerk of Court on Apd115, 2013, and wa'; retermd to
Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly for pretrial proceediniss in accordance Wil:1 the \{agistrate
Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Civil Rules 72.C and D.
Magistrate Judge Kelly's Report and RecOmmen(lation, ECF No. 12, jJe,j (In Febrll2.ry
13,2014, recommended that Petition be dismissed as meritless. Petitioner \\LiS iTfinmed fmt, in
accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.c. § 636(b)(l)(B) and (C), and the loCi)
rules, he had a specific period of time in which to file objections. Petitioner filed )bjecti( Ins,
ECF No. 13, on March 5, 2014.
Nothing in those Objections merits rejection ofthe Report or extenc,;d cOlDfDent. The
only Objection bearing mention is PetiLoner's claim thit "the state courts t lId distrkt court have
overlooked the actual instruction at issLe. The standarcl jury instruction sas fii)thing about an
admission of guilt required by Petitiom:r/defendant." ECF No. 13 at 1. Vt tlat'~Vt~J' the merits of
Petitioner's contentions as to what is required under Pt.:nnsylvania law so, ., to rrount a ·..oluntary
intoxication defense and/or merit a voluntary intoxica1.ion jury instruction the: question

laS

already been settled, to the contrary, by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Comm;m'Y!:eah!l.Y.:
Sanchez, 82 A.3d 943, 977 (Pa. 2013) ("The defense of diminished capacity, whether grou 1ded in
mental defect or voluntary intoxication, is an extremely limited defense available only to defendants
who admit criminal liability but contest the degree of culpability based upon an inalility to formulate
the specific intent to kill. Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 611 P:i. 280, 25 A.3d 277, 312 (F a, 2011).
'If a defendant does not admit that he killed the victim, but rather advances an inno;enee jc!fense,
then evidence on diminished capacity is inadmissible.' Jd."). Given the Pennsylvallia State Supreme
Court's holding as to what is required in order to merit a voluntary intoxication defensl~/i 1struction,
Petitioner's arguments to the contrary are simply unavailing l:ere, as we are bound by ';h(:
Pennsylvania State Supreme Court's construction of State law. Wainwright v.

Goodl:~, '~64

U.S. 78,

84 (1983) (stating that federal courts are bound by a State Court's interpretatioJ of stat~ law);
Lyda v. Gibson, 172 F.3d 879 (Table), 1999 WL 107116, Lt * 1 (loth Cir. 1999, ("No c.uthority is
granted to federal courts to correct errors of state law mace by state courts."); Mc;C(lrgnick v.
Kline, 572 F 3d 841, 850 (lOth Cir. 2009) ("Even if Kans~l.s did commit such errors JJ1der state
law, however~and even if such errors, if cJrrected, would have meant that § : 1-4608(c) did apply
to McCormick's 2004 sentencing-it is sirr,ply not our province 'to reexamine sta1.e-,xmrt
determinations on state-law questions,' Estelle v. McGut..e, 502 U.S. 62, 68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116
L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). 'Such an inquiry ... is no part of a

f;~deral

court's habea~: review of a nate

conviction ..., [because] 'federal habeas;:orpus relief does not lie for errors )f state law. '''). This
is true even if we were convinced that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's d';:cision regardmg
what is required to merit the voluntary intoxication instruction/defense was

wron:~

pecaUSt:, by

definition, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's construction of State law car:not b(: ·wrong. Bagby
v. Sowders, 894 F.2d 792, 795 (6 th Cir. 1990) ("Inasmuch as the highest c(JrtJfKentuc (y
expressly held that the state trial court did not err in re.:Using to give the reluc:,tef lesser included

2

offense instruction, the refusal was necessarilv correct as a matter of state law. It ,vodd be an
.
,
extremely rare case in which a federal court could conclude tnat a state court commiTte j 1m error
under state law. Indeed, if the case has been reviewed by the state's highest coun it 'VOJl.d be

impossible to find an error of state law if that court did not.' ') (quoting Pilon v. 3or.delkircher,
,
593 F.2d 264,267 n.4 (6 th CiT. 1079), vacated on other gro;mds, 444 U.S. 1 (1979)(mtphasis
added). Accordingly, this Objection by Petitioner is ovem,Jed.
None of Petitioner's other Objectio~1s bears mentioling. Hence, his Objections are
OVERRULED.
Accordingly, after de novo review of the pleading; and the

document~

in/he case,

together with the Report and Recommendation, the following order is entere(/:
AND NOW, this 6flfday of March, 2014,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition is dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, ECF ''J"o. 12, filed on
February 13,2014, by Magistrate Judge Kelly, is

adopt:~d as the opinion ofthe COlJ-t. A

certificate of appealability is DENIED as jurists of reawn would not disagree 1,Vittl the
disposition of this case.
The Clerk is to mark the case closed.

4 "Mc'~~

-' ora
.A'ra Barry Fiscl~r
U.S. District JuC!ge
cc:

Th~ Honorable Maureen P. Kelly
Untted States Magistrate Judg,~

All Counsel of Record via CM-ECF

3

John Fuller

HP-4068

SCI Graterford

P.O. Box 244

Graterford, PA 19426

4