2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-28-2009 

# C onn v . L a van P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-4444

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " C onn v . L a van" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1300. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/13001 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 4444

____________ J OHN C ONN, A ppel l ant vs. T HOMAS L AVAN; T HE DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y OF T HE CO UN TY O F P HI LAD ELPHI A; THE A TTOR NEY GE NE RA L OF T HE S T AT E OF P E NNS YL VANI A

____________ APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F OR T HE E AS T E RN DI S T RI CT OF P E NNS YL VANI A

( D . C . C i v. N o. 04- C V - 01990) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Law r ence F. St engel

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 2, 2009 B efore: B A R R Y , W E IS and R O T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: M ay28, 2009)

____________ OP I NI ON W E I S, C i r cui tJ udge.

J ohn C onn appea l s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng hi s habea s corpus p e t i t i o n . W e wi l l a f

f i r m.2 O n February20, 1981, a j uryempanel ed i n the C our tof C om m on Pl eas of Phi l adel phi a C ount y , Penns y l vani a, convi ct ed C onn of s econd de gr ee mur der , ar s on, bur gl ary , and theft . T he convi ct i ons ar os e fr om a s er i es of eve nt s i n w hi ch M artha G re is s , a n e ld e rl y , d e a f

w o m a n w a s k ille d a n d h e r h o u s e w a s b u rg le d a n d s e t a b la z e . C onn w as s ent ence d t o a mandat oryt erm of l i fe i m pr i s onm entform ur derand a cons ecut i ve t erm of fi ve t o t en y ear s forar s on.

A ft erexhaus t i ng hi s di r ectappea l capa bi l i t i es , C onn fi l ed a pr o s e pet i t i on underPenns y l vani a’ s PostC onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct( “PC R A ”) , 42 Pa. C . S. § 9541 et s eq. , ra is in g a n u m b e r o f

c la im s f o r r e lie f. T h e C o u rt o f

C o m m o n P le a s d e n ie d h is p e titio n . T h e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p e rio r C o u rt a f f irm e d o n O c to b e r 2 , 2 0 0 3 , an d th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt d e n ie d a llo w a n c e o f a p p e a l o n F e b ru a ry 1 8 , 2 0 0 4 . O n M ay7, 2004, C onn fi l ed a pro se pet i t i on forhabea s corpus i n the Di s tr i c tCo u r t . I n th a tp e t i t i o n , Co n n s e tf o r th a c l a i m h e h a d p u r s u e d d u r i n g h i s P CRA pr ocee di ngs – thathe r ece i ved i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el beca us e hi s tr i al couns el fai l ed t o i nves t i gat e orcal l R obertD ugan as a w i tnes s . O n J une 7, 2004, C onn fi l ed a m ot i on t o amend hi s habea s corpus pet i t i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed C onn’ s m ot i on on J une 9, s t at i ng, “Pet i t i oner ’ s amendm ents hal l be fi l ed byJ ul y9, 2004. ” C onn fi l ed an a m e n d e d p e titio n o n J u ly 7 , 2 0 0 4 , th a t r a is e d s e v e n a d d itio n a l is s u e s .

A m agi s tr at e j udge i s s ued a r eportand r ecomm endat i on on C onn’ s pet i t i on on J anuary31, 2005. W i th r es pectt o the cl ai m thathe r ece i ved i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) pr ovi des , w i th qual i fi cat i ons , a gene r al one- y ear 1 per i od of l i m i t at i ons forper s ons i n cus t odypur s uantt o a s t at e courtj udgm entt o fi l e a p e titio n f o r a w ri t o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s . 3 c o u n se l b e c a u se h is tria l co u n se l f a iled to c a ll fo r D u g a n ’s te stim o n y , the m a g istra te j udge found thatthe Penns y l vani a Super i orC our tr eas onabl yappl i ed Str i ckl and v. W as hi ngt on, 466 U . S. 668 ( 1984) . T he magi s tr at e j udge al s o det erm i ned thatthe r emai nderof C onn’ s cl ai m s , w hi ch w er e pr es ent ed i n hi s amended pet i t i on, w er e barr ed b yth e sta tu te o f

lim itatio n s s e t f

o rth in 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d ). A c c o rd in g ly , the m a g istra te 1 ju d g e re c o m m e n d e d th a t C o n n ’s p e titio n b e d e n ie d .

I n an or derent er ed A ugus t31, 2005, the D i s tr i ctC our tappr oved and adopt ed the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r eportand r ecomm endat i on overC onn’ s obj ect i ons and d e n i e d h i s h a b e a s c o rp u s p e t i t i o n i n i t s e n t i r e ty . S u b s e q u e n t l y , o n J a n u a ry2 2 , 2 0 0 8 , we grant ed C on n’s pet i t i on for a cert i fi cat e of a pp eal abil i tyas t o the foll ow i ng i ssues:

“1) w hether[C onn’ s ] tr i al att orneyw as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o i nves t i gat e orcal l R obertD ugan as a w i tnes s ; and 2) w hetherthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng appel l ant equi t abl e t ol l i ng beca us e the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s or der gr ant i ng hi s m ot i on t o amend m i s l ed hi m i nt o bel i evi ng he h a d u n til J u ly 9 , 2 0 0 4 , to a d d h is n e w c la im s .” Si nce the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d nothol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng, ourr evi ew of its o rd e r i s p le n a ry. H o lla n d v . H o rn , 5 1 9 F .3 d 1 0 7 , 1 1 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ).

W e w i l l addr es s the i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i s s ue fi r s t . C onn a rg u e s th a t th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p e rio r C o u rt “ u tterlyf a iled ” in a p p ly in g S trick lan d to h is4

P C R A p e titio n .

W e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatthe Super i orC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of S tr icklan d w as n o t un rea so n ab le. “[ A ] fe d era l cou rtm ayn o t gran t a st ate p ri so n er’s habea s appl i cat i on unl es s the r el evants t at e- courtdeci s i on ‘ w as contr aryt o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , as det erm i ned bythe Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es . ’ ” K now l es v. M i r zay ance , 129 S. C t . 1411, 1418 ( 2009) ( quot i ng 28 U . S. C . § 2254( d) ( 1) ) . G i ven the overw hel m i ng qual i t at i ve and q u a n tit a tiv e e v id e n c e o f C o n n ’s g u ilta t trial a n d o u r “ d o u b lyd e f e re n tial” re v iew in th is c a s e , id . a t 1 4 2 0 , w e c a n n o t s a yth a t th e S u p e ri o r C o u rt ’s c o n c lu s io n w a s u n re a s o n a b le .

C onn di d notdemonstr at e a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythatthe r es ul tof hi s t r i al w oul d have be en di ffe r enthad couns el i nves t i gat ed D ugan’ s know l edge of the eve nt s at i s s ue orcal l ed D ugan as a w i tnes s . See i d. at1422 ( t o es t abl i s h the “pr ej udi ce” that St r i ckl and r equi r es , a cl ai m antof i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el m us tdemonstr at e “a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythat , butforcouns el ’ s unpr ofes s i onal err or s , the r es ul tof the p ro c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e re n t” (q u o tin g S tr ic k la n d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 4 )) . C ons equent l y , C onn i s notent i t l ed t o habea s corpus r el i ef on hi s cl ai m thathe r ece i ved in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. W e do nothave a uthor i tyt o r evi ew the s econd i s s ue i dent i fi ed i n the cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty– w hetherthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng equi t abl e t ol l i ng of § 2244( d) ’ s s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons forthe r emai ni ng cl ai m s pr es ent ed i n the amended5

h a b e a s c o rp u s p e titio n .

T he Supr eme C our thas hel d thatw hen a D i s tr i ctC our tdeni es a habe as c o rp u s p e titio n o n p ro c e d u ra l g ro u n d s , a c e rt if ic a te o f a p p e a la b ility “ s h o u ld is s u e . . . w hen the pr i s oners how s . . . ‘ thatj ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hetherthe p e tit io n sta tes a v a lid c laim o f th e d e n ial o f

a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t and thatj ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourtw as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. ’ ” J i m enez v. Q uart erm an, 129 S. C t . 681, 684 n. 3 ( 2009) ( quot i ng Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (2 0 0 0 )) .

T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of the s even ha beas cl ai m s fi r s tpr es ent ed i n t he amended pet i t i on of J ul y7, 2004, w as founded on a pr ocedur al bas i s . C onn has not dem on strat ed thatj uri st s of reason w ou l d d ebate that anyof the seven is sues fi rs t pr es ent ed i n thatpet i t i on s t at e a va l i d cl ai m of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . A ft er f u rth e r re v iew , w e c o n c lu d e th a t w e im p ro v id e n tlyg ra n ted th e c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty o n the e q u it ab le t o ll ing issue . S ee K h aim o v v . C ri st, 2 9 7 F . 3 d 7 8 3 , 7 8 6 (8th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (a c e rtific a te o f

a p p e a lab ili tyin iti a llyg ra n ted b yth e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls w a s im p ro v id e n tly gr ant ed i n an appe al fr om the deni al of a ha beas corpus pet i t i on beca us e, w hi l e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s r es ol ut i on of pr ocedur al i s s ues w as debat abl e, the s ubs t ant i ve cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s r ai s ed bythe pet i t i onerw er e mer i t l es s ) . C ons equent l y , w e l ack ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h e e q u ita b le to llin g is s u e w e id e n tif ie d in th e c e rt if

ic a te o f a p p e a la b ility. See Lam bertv. B l ackw el l , 387 F. 3d 210, 230 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( “[w ] e onl yhave j ur i s di ct i on6

i f thi s C our tora D i s tr i ctC ourthas pr oper l yi s s ued a c ert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i typur s uant to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )” ).

I n s um , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the mer i t s of the pr ocedur al i s s ue, but w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng C onn’ s habea s corpus pet i t i on.