SITA v. COMMONWEALTH OF PA et al
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by BRIAN SITA dismissing petition and denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 10/16/2014. (Mitchell, Robert)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRIAN SITA,
Petitioner,
v.
COM. OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
) 2-14-CV-591
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Mitchell, M.J.:
Brian Sita has presented a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which he has been granted
leave to prosecute in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, the petition will be
dismissed, and because reasonable jurists could not conclude that a basis for appeal exists, a
certificate of appealability will be denied.
Sita is presently serving a probationary sentence imposed following the entry of a guilty
plea to charges of indecent assault, endangering the welfare of children and corruption of minors
at No. CP-02-CR.9599 -2010 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
This sentence was imposed on September 27, 2011.1
The relevant background and chronological history are set forth in the September 24,
2013 Memorandum of the Superior Court:
The Commonwealth charged Appellant with over 50 crimes, mostly sexual
offenses, on September 28, 2010. The Commonwealth alleged the crimes were
committed over the course of five years on the minor daughter of Appellant's
girlfriend, with whom Appellant was cohabitating. On September 26, 2011,
Appellant, represented by counsel pled guilty to one count each of indecent
assault, endangering the welfare of minors, and corruption of minors. After
accepting the plea, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of six
years of probation. Appellant did not file post-trial motions or a direct appeal.
Subsequently, Appellant sent the court two letters requesting collateral relief that
the trial court deemed filings under the PCRA. The PCRA court appointed PCRA
counsel who filed an amended PCRA petition on October 10, 2012. After
receiving an answer from the Commonwealth, on November 13, 2012, the PCRA
1
See: Petition at ¶¶ 1-6.
1
court filed a notice to dismiss the PCRA petition without an evidentiary hearing
pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 903. On December 14, 2012, the PCRA court dismissed
Appellant's PCRA petition. This timely appeal followed.
On appeal, Appellant presents three issues for our review:
I.
Did the PCRA court err by denying [Appellant's] PCRA petition since the
record shows that the trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure that
[Appellant], a deaf individual, understood and was able to follow the
guilty plea proceedings?
II.
Did the [PCRA] court err by denying [Appellant's] PCRA petition since
the record shows that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure that
[Appellant] was informed of his right to file post-sentence motions and a
direct appeal?
III.
Did the [PCRA] court err by denying [Appellant's] PCRA petition since
the record shows that trial counsel was ineffective for unlawfully inducing
the guilty plea by misadvising [Appellant] that he would be with his
children if he pled guilty and failing to advise him that contact with his
children would be eliminated or severely restricted if he pled guilty?
(footnotes omitted).2
On September 24, 2013, the denial of post-conviction relief was affirmed and leave to
appeal was denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on February 20, 2014.3
In the instant petition executed on May8, 2014 and received in this Court on the same
date, Sita alleges he is entitled to relief on the following grounds:
My rights was violated to fully understanding: counsel was ineffective; interpreter
not clear or refused; results different than charges; communication with everyone
was not established and in possession of added proof and evidence to support my
innocence.4
Where a habeas challenge is raised following a plea of guilty, the only question
before the federal court is whether or not the plea was knowingly, voluntarily and
intelligently entered. Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175, 183 (2005). That is, the
defendant must be provided with sufficient information for making an informed decision.
Shotts v. Wetzel, 724 F.3d 364 (3d Cir. 2013), cert. denied 134 S.Ct. 1340 (2014).
2
3
4
See: Exhibit 6 to the response at pp.1-3.
See: Exhibit 1 to the response at p.14.
See: Petition at ¶ 12.
2
At the plea and sentencing hearing conducted on September 26, 2011, the plaintiff
appeared with two attorneys and two court interpreters were sworn (TT. 3); defense
counsel explained that the petitioner could hear and understand language and could also
lip read and did not require a separate interpreter to confer with counsel (TT.2, 4); the
petitioner testified that he understood that there would not be an interpreter for any
communications he wished to have with defense counsel (TT.5); that he was able to read
lips and speak (TT.5); that he was forty-six years old, attended three years of college,
could read, write and understand the English language (TT.7-8); that he had not
consumed any alcohol within the prior forty-eight hours; that was able to make decisions,
and that he had no mental illness (TT.7-14).
The prosecutor explained that the agreement entered into required the petitioner to
plead to counts 2, 6 and 7 in exchange for a period of probation to be determined by the
court (TT.6). The petitioner testified that no additional promises had been made to him;
that no coercion had been employed and that he was pleading guilty because he was in
fact guilty of the charges (TT.9-15). The Commonwealth outlined its case (TT.14), the
petitioner stated that he understood the Megan's law requirements (TT.16-19) and the
court determined that the plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered and
accepted the plea (TT.15). The probationary sentence was then imposed (TT.21).
Prior to entering the plea, Sita also executed a Guilty Plea Explanation of Rights
Form again acknowledging his rights and that his plea was voluntarily, knowingly and
intelligently entered.5
For these reasons, there is no basis upon which to conclude that the plea was not
knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered with the assistance of counsel.
Additionally, there is no demonstration that Sita's conviction was obtained in any manner
contrary to federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States nor
involved an unreasonable interpretation of that law, and for this reason, Sita is not
entitled to relief here. Accordingly, the petition of Brian Sita for a writ of habeas corpus
will be dismissed, and because reasonable jurists could not conclude that a basis for
appeal exists, a certificate of appealability will be denied.
An appropriate Order will be entered.
5
That form appears as response Exhibit 7 although it is mismarked as a second Exhibit 2.
3
ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of October 2014, for the reasons set forth in the
foregoing Memorandum, the petition of Brian Sita (ECF 2) is DISMISSED, and because
reasonable jurists could not conclude that a basis for appeal exists, a certificate of
appealability is DENIED.
s/ Robert C. Mitchell
United States Magistrate Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?