2007 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
12-13-2007 

# W a shingt on v . S obin a P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-4522

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_2007

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 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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

" W ashin g t on v

. S o b in a" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 9. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/9P RE CE DE NT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 05- 4522

RI CH AR D A. WAS HI NGT ON

v. RA YM ON D J
. SOBI NA , SUPERI NTEN DEN T; TH E D I STR I CT A TTO RN EY O F T HE CO UNT Y OF P HI L ADE L P HI A; TH E A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F T HE S T AT E OF P E NNS YL VANI A, A p p e llan ts
O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. N o. 02- cv- 07474) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A ni t a B
. B r ody
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober22, 2007 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , C H A G A R E S , a n d H A R D IM A N ,

C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed D ece m ber13, 2007 )

____ T hom as W
. D ol genos S u sa n E . A f

f ro n ti O ffi ce of D i s t r i ctA t t orney Phi l adel phi a, PA l 9l 07- 3499 A tto rn e y s f

o r A p p e llan ts2 R i char d A
. W as hi ngt on #D K
- 8177 Som er s et , PA 15510 A pp e l l e e Pr o Se

____

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. Feder al j udges r evi ew i ng habea s corpus m at t er s oft en fac e a di ffi cul tas s i gnm ent
. Fr equent l y , the s t at e courtr ecor ds pr es ent ed ar e i n di s arr ayori ncompl et e, the def endantw as u n re p re se n ted o r in a d e q u a telyre p re se n ted in th e sta te p ro c e e d in g s, a n d th e d e f e re n c e to b e a c c o rd e d is u n c lea r, as it m aydepend on w hetherthe s t at e court ’ s deci s i on w as bas ed on a fi ndi ng of fa ctorconcl us i on of l aw . I n t he appe al befor e us , the D istri ct C o u rtu n d ertoo k a m eti cu lou s ex am ination o f th e re co rd and the appl i cabl e l egal pr i nci pl es , butourdeci s i on hi nges on t he cha r act er i zat i on of the s t at e courtfi ndi ng - one on w hi ch the par t i es vi gor ous l ydi s agr ee. I. R i char d A
. W as hi ngt on w as arr es t ed on D ece m ber18, 1 9 9 5 , an d th e re a f

ter c h a rg e d in sta te c o u rt o n n u m e ro u s c o u n ts in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e k id n a p p in g o f A sh a W o o d a ll, h is gi r l fr i end, and the murde rof A nthonyC arney , w ho W as hi ngt on bel i eved w as havi ng a r el at i ons hi p w i t h W oodal l
. W as hi ngt on v . S o b i n a , 3 8 7 F
. S u p p . 2 d 4 6 0 , 4 6 2 ( E
. D. P a . 2 0 0 5 )
. On D ece m ber22, 1998, aft erthe fi r s ttr i al ended i n a mi s t r i al , the s e c o n d j u r y f

o u n d W a s h i n g t o n g u i l t y o f c r i m i n a l c o n s p i r a c y, pos s es s i on of an i ns t rum entof cr i m e, and r obberyof a mot or vehi cl e. T he j ur yal s o acqui t t ed hi m of s om e cha r ges , i ncl udi ng fi r s tdegr ee mur der , and w as unabl e t o r eac h a ver di cton t heW as hi ngt on’ s thi r d t r i al began on February10, 2003, and 1 e n d e d w ith a h u n g ju ry o n F e b r u a r y2 1 , 2 0 0 3 . Id . at 4 6 4 . W h ile aw ait ing a fourt h t r i al , W as hi ngt on pl ed gui l t yt o the untr i ed m ur derand ki dnappi ng char ges on M ay9, 2006, and w as s ent ence d t o a t ot al of s even a nd one- hal f t o tw entyy ear s i m pr i s onm entt o run concurr ent l yw i t h t he s ent ence forthe thr ee c ount s of convi ct i on. 3 count s char gi ng t he l es s erdegr ees of m ur derand ki dnappi ng. 1 O n February16, 1999, W as hi ngt on w as s ent ence d t o fi ve t o t en y ear s i m pr i s onm enton t he thr ee c har ges forw hi ch he w as convi ct ed. O n February19, 1999, W as hi ngt on, act i ng pr o s e, fi l ed a pos t
- s ent ence m ot i on cont es t i ng hi s s ent ence w i t houtnot i fy i ng hi s at t or neyt hathe had done s o. O n M ar ch 5, 1999, W as hi ngt on’ s at t or neypr es ent ed a not i ce of appea l fr om the j udgm entof s ent ence , w hi ch w as s t amped bythe cl erk’ s offi ce as “R ece i ved A cce pt ed ForR evi ew O nl yM ar5 1999 C r i m i nal A p p e a ls U n it F irst Ju d icia l D istric t o f P A .” A p p . at 9 1 . T h e re is no docketentr yfora not i ce of appea l
. O n M ar ch 15, 1999, W as hi ngt on’ s at t or neyw as or der ed bythe tr i al j udge “t o fi l e of r ecor d, a conc i s e St at ementof M att er s C om pl ai ned of on the A ppeal
. ” W as h. A pp. at5. T he l et t erfr om the j udge s t at ed that
“ [ u ] p o n r e c e i p to f

y o u rr e p l yt o th i s o r d e r , I wi l l wr i t e my O pi ni on for t hw i th. ” W as h. A pp. at5. O n A p ri l 26 , 1 9 9 9 , the tri al co u rtd en ied W ash ing ton ’s pos t
- s ent ence m ot i on. O n A pr i l 30, 1999, the tr i al cour ti s s ued an “O rde r” se tt ing fo rth a p roc ed u ral hist o ryo f W ash ing ton ’s pos t
- s ent ence fi l i ngs , w hi ch i ncl uded, i nt eral i a, the fol l ow i ng: “1. O n 2/ 16/ 99, defe ndantw as s ent ence d on the part i al ver di ctof 1 2 /22 /98
. 2
. O n 3 /5/99 , A p p ea l t o P en n sy lvan ia S u p erior C o u rt acc ept ed forr evi ew onl y . ” W as h. A pp. at96. W as hi ngt on fi l ed a ha beas corpus pet i t i on i n t he Super i or C o u rto f P en n sy lvan ia on N o v em b er 8 , 2 0 0 1 , w h ich th e c o u rt deni ed on J anuary30, 2002, ci t i ng t o “M uni ci pal Publ i cat i ons v. C our tof C om m on Pl eas , 489 A
. 2d 1286 ( Pa. 1985) ( s t at i ng that th e S u p re m e C o u rt o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia h a s o rig in a l ju risd ictio n toT his app eal w as fi l ed b yS up eri ntenden tR aym on d J. 2 Sobi na, t he O ffi ce of

t he D i s t r i ctA t t orneyof Phi l adel phi a, and the A t t or ney G ener al of t he S t at e of Penns y l vani a ( “C om m onw eal t h” o r “g o v ern m en t”). 4 is s u e a w ri t o n th e lo w e r c o u rt w h e re n o a p p e a l is p e n d in g .)”
. W ash ing ton , 3 8 7 F
. S u p p . 2 d at 46 4 & n . 1 3 (em p h asis ad d ed ). W ash ing ton fil ed a f

ed era l hab ea s co rpu s p eti ti o n o n F eb rua ry 19, 2002, w hi ch w as s um m ar i l ydi s m i s s ed fornon- exhaus t i on b e c a u s e o f

th e p e n d e n c yo f

th e s ta te h a b e a s p e titio n . W as hi ngt on fi l ed anothers t at e habe as corpus pet i t i on i n t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our ton M ar ch 12, 2002, w hi ch w as di s m i s s ed on J une 4, 2002. O n Sept ember25, 2002, W as hi ngt on fi l ed hi s s econd f

eder al habea s corpus pet i t i on, w hi ch al l eged t hathi s Si xt h A m endmentr i ghtt o a s peedytr i al and hi s due p ro c e ss rig h t to a sp e e d ya p p e a l h a d b e e n d e n ied . It i s th is p eti ti o n that is th e b asis o f th is ap p ea l. T h e D istri ct C o u rt 2 appoi nt ed couns el forW as hi ngt on. W hi l e the fe der al habea s pet i t i on w as pendi ng, W as hi ngt on, on A ugus t11, 2003, agai n act i ng pr o s e, fi l ed a pos t
- convi ct i on r evi ew pet i t i on i n s t at e court , pur s uantt o t he Penns y l vani a Pos tC onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct( “PC R A ”) , al l egi ng that h is r igh t t o ap p ea l had b ee n d en ied. T h e P C R A co u rt di s m i s s ed W as hi ngt on’ s PC R A pet i t i on on J une 22, 2004. I n an op i nion fi l ed A ug ust23 , 20 04 , the P C R A j ud ge (w ho w as al so th e tr ia l ju d g e ) s e t f

o rt h th e b a s is f

o r t h e J u n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 o rd e r. S e e A p p . 8 1

- 9 0
. T h e c o u r tr e v i e w e d th e p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y, not i ng t hatt he C om m onw eal t h had notfi l ed an a ppeal fr om the or derdi s m i s s i ng t he fi r s tdegr ee mur derchar ge, and s t at ed that “[t ] he ca s e w as del ay ed mul t i pl e t i m es beca us e of s chedul i ng iss u e s a n d b e c a u se a n a p p e a l w a s f iled w ith re sp e c t to [def endant ’ s ] R obberyof M ot orV ehi cl e convi ct i on. T he appe al w as ul t i m at el yw i t hdr aw n. ” A pp. at85. T he PC R A cour tthen listed th e p ro c e d u ra l ev e n ts f ro m D e c e m b e r 1 7 , 1 9 9 9 u n til February12, 2003, endi ng w i t h t he hung j uryand the ca s e bei ng co n ti n u ed fo r st atus li sti n g o n F eb rua ry2 6 , 2 0 0 3
. T h e c o u rt cont i nued w i t h i t s r evi ew of the pr ocee di ngs , s t at i ng thaton J une 1 5 , 2 0 0 4 , ita llo w e d W a sh in g to n to p ro c e e d p ro se w ith h is5 PC R A cl ai m s athi s r eques t
. T he courtthen s t at ed “[ o] n J une 22, 2004, t hi s cour tdi s m i s s ed [d] efe ndant ’ s PC R A cl ai m s forr el i ef as unt i m el y . ” A pp. at86. In th e n e x t se c tio n o f

th e o p in io n o f

th e P C R A c o u rt, undert he hea di ng “Legal I s s ue, ” the courtagai n di s cus s ed the pr i orpr ocee di ngs . T he courts t at ed:

D e f e n d a n t w a s c o n v icte d o f th e c h a rg e s re lev a n t to hi s PC R A pet i t i on on D ece m ber22, 1998 and s ent ence d on February16, 1999. D efe ndant ’ s pos t
- s ent ence m ot i ons w er e deni ed on A pr i l 15, 1999. D efe ndantthen ha d 3 0 d a y s i n whi c h t o f i l e a n a pp e a l
. Pa
. R. Cr i m. P. 1410( A ) ( 2)
. D efe ndantfai l ed t o do s o. T her efor e, the j udgm enti n hi s cas e bec ame fi nal 30 day s aft erA pr i l 15, 1999. See C om m onw eal t h v. Sm i t h, 818 A
. 2d 494, 495 (P a. 20 0 3 ); 4 2 P a.C
. S
. § 9 5 4 5 (b)(1 ). A pp. at87 ( emphasi s added)
. T he courtcont i nued:

D e f e n d a n t h a d o n e y e a r f

ro m 3 0 d a y s a f

ter A p ril 1 5 , 1 9 9 9 to f

ile a P C R A p e titio n . 4 2 P a .C .S . § 9545( b) ( 1)
. D efe ndantdi d notfi l e hi s PC R A pet i t i on unt i l A ugus t11, 2003, m or e than tw o y ear s aft erthe j udgm enti n hi s cas e bec ame fi nal r el at i ve t o t he i ns t ant c h a r g e s . Th e r e f

o r e , i n o r d e rf

o rDe f e n d a n t ’ s P CRA pet i t i on t o be t i m el y , D efe ndantw oul d have t o al l ege one o f th e th re e tim e lin e s s e x c e p tio n s in 4 2 P a .C .S . § 9 5 4 5 (b )( 1 )( i) -( iii)
. . . . A pp. at88. T he PC R A cour tnot ed thatW as hi ngt on di d notal l ege anyof the t i m el i nes s exce pt i ons buts t at ed thathe r ai s ed by i m pl i cat i on a cl ai m of governm enti nt er fer ence thatthe tr i al c o u rt h a d e f

f e c tiv e lyd e n ied h is rig h t to a p p e a l o r b rin g a tim e ly PC R A pet i t i on byi m pos i ng s ent ence on hi m w hi l e otherchar ges agai ns thi m w er e s t i l l pendi ng. T he PC R A cour tconcl uded that th e c laim w a s w ith o u t m e rit. B e c a u se P e n n sy lv a n ia h a d n o ru le on poi nt , t he courtcons i der ed ca s es fr om ot herj ur i s di ct i ons that6 perm i t t ed appe al s on l es s than al l count s of a c r i m i nal i ndi ctm ent even w hi l e othercount s w er e s t i l l pendi ng. I tr efe r r ed t o, i nt er al i a, U ni t ed St at es v. A br ams, 137 F. 3d 704, 707 ( 2d C i r . 1998) ( not i ng m aj or i t yappr oach pe r m i t t i ng appea l fr om convi ct i on and s ent ence on l es s t han al l count s of an i ndi ctm entw hen other count s t r i ed i n s ame t r i al r emai ned unr es ol ved) , and U ni t ed St at es v. K aufmann, 985 F. 2d 884, 891 ( 7th C i r . 1993) ( “[S] ever al ci r cui t s have .
. . ent ert ai ned an a ppeal on one count of a c r i m i nal i ndi ctm entw hi l e othercount s of the i ndi ctm ent w er e unr es ol ved. ”) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. C i cco, 938 F. 2d 441, 4 4 2 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 1 )). R el y i ng on t hes e ca s es , the PC R A cour tr ej ect ed W as hi ngt on’ s ar gum entthatthe tr i al cour tcoul d nothave s ent ence d hi m on s om e of the cha r ges on w hi ch he w as convi ct ed w hi l e other s w er e s t i l l pendi ng. I ts t at ed that W a sh in g to n “ c a n n o t n o w c laim th a t h is f a ilu re to p ro p e rly pr os ecut e an a ppeal cons t i tut es governm enti nt er fer ence bas ed upon unl i kel ys pecul at i on thatPenns y l vani a w oul d adoptthe lim ited m in o ritya p p ro a c h o f b a rrin g a p p e a ls u n til a ll ch a rg e s in a n i n d i c t me n tr e c e i v e f

i n a l j u d g me n t
. ” Ap p . a t8 9
. Th e P CRA c o u r tc o n c l u d e d t h a tW a s h i n g t o n “ f a i l e d t o b r i n g h i s P CRA pet i t i on w i t hi n t he s t atut oryt i m e fr ame” and di s m i s s ed the pet i t i on as unt i m el y . A pp. at90. M e a n w h ile , th e m a tte r w a s p ro c e e d in g in f e d e ra l c o u rt
. A ft ert he M agi s t r at e J udge i s s ued a Repor tand R ecomm endat i on (“R & R ”), r ec o m m en d ing rejecti o n o f so m e o f W ash ing ton ’s cl ai m s butacc ept ance of hi s cl ai m thathi s s peedyappea l r i ght w as vi ol at ed, bot h t he C om m onw eal t h and W as hi ngt on fi l ed obj ect i ons . U ndoubt edl ythe PC R A cour t ’ s A ugus t23, 2004 o p in io n lef

t th e D istric t C o u rt in a d if f icu lt p o sitio n a s to w h e th e r W a sh in g to n h a d f a iled to f ile o r h a d w ith d ra w n h is appea l
. A ccor di ng t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s l i s t i ng of the s equent i al event s , t her e w as w hati s t erm ed on the docke tan ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g o n Jan u ary1 8 , 2 0 0 5 , at w h ich th e C o u rt det erm i ned, aft ercons ul t at i on w i t h t he part i es , thatanother evi dent i aryhear i ng w oul d be nec es s ary . I ns t ead of w ai t i ng for t he Super i orC our tdeci s i on on W as hi ngt on’ s appea l of the deni al of hi s PC R A pet i t i on, as the C om m onw eal t h r eques t ed,7 s ee A pp. 161- 62, t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr ocee ded t o conductan evi dent i aryhear i ng on M ay20, 2005 atw hi ch onl yW as hi ngt on t es t i fi ed. A re v iew o f

th e tes tim o n ya t th a t h e a rin g sh o w s th a t it w a s f o c u se d o n W a sh in g to n ’s s p e e d ytrial c laim , as th e o n ly r efe r ence s t o t he appe al w er e W as hi ngt on’ s s t at ement s thathe w as t r y i ng t o gett o t r i al ( on the s t i l l pendi ng char ges ) s o t hathe coul d pur s ue an a ppeal ( on the cha r ges forw hi ch he w as convi ct ed)
. See A pp. at195- 196. A tthe conc l us i on of the hear i ng on M ay20, 2005, the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the part i es perm i s s i on t o fi l e tw o addi t i onal aff i davi t s . Pur s uantt o t hat or der , W as hi ngt on fi l ed the af fi davi tof hi s tr i al couns el , C har l es M i r ar chi , I I I , w ho s t at ed that“[o] n M ar ch 7, 1999, I fi l ed a N ot i ce of

A ppeal bas ed on J udge Pos er i na’ s February16, 1999- s ent ence . T hatnot i ce ha s neverbeen di s m i s s ed. I w as t ol d by t he C our tt hatan appe al on a part i al ver di ctcoul d notbe pr os ecut ed. ” W as h. A pp. at15- 16. T her eaf t er , on Sept ember12, 2005, agai n w i t houtw ai t i ng f o r th e S u p e rio r C o u rt d e c isio n , the D istric t C o u rt issu e d its o p in io n o n W a s h in g to n ’s re q u e s t f o r a w ri t o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s . S e e W a sh in g to n , 3 8 7 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 4 6 0 . T h e C o u rt a g re e d w ith t he conc l us i on of the M agi s t r at e J udge thatW as hi ngt on had exhaus t ed hi s cl ai m and thatW as hi ngt on’ s r i ghtt o a s peedytr i al h a d n o t b e e n v io late d . Id . at 4 6 8 , 4 7 3 . T h e C o u rt th e n tu rn e d to W as hi ngt on’ s cl ai m t hathi s r i ghtt o a s peedyappea l had bee n vi ol at ed. T he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed the governm ent ’ s ar gum ent t hatW as hi ngt on had, i n fac t , neverfi l ed an e ffe ct i ve not i ce of appea l and ther efor e no appe al w as curr ent l ypendi ng. I d. at 475. T he C our tnot ed thatthe governm entther eaf t erar gued that t he appe al w as w i t hdr aw n and conc l uded that“the governm ent has appar ent l yabandone d t he ar gum enti n i t s obj ect i on thatthe a p p e a l w a s n o t ef

f e c tiv e lyf

iled ,” id . at 4 7 4 , b u t p ro c e e d e d to cons i dert he ar gum enti n anyevent
. T he D i s t r i ctC our ts t at ed t hat“[t ] he s t at e courtr ecor d i ndi cat es thatthe courtacc ept ed W ash ing ton ’s no ti ce o f a p p ea l, ” re jected the g o v ern m en t’ s cont ent i on t hatt he s t at e courtcoul d notpos s i bl yhave a cce pt ed W as hi ngt on’ s appea l beca us e hi s pos t
- s ent ence m ot i on w as p e n d in g , an d in ste a d sta ted “ it i s e q u a llylik e lyth a t th e c o u rt d idW as hi ngt on al s o cr os s - appea l ed the D i s tr i c tCour t ’ s deni al 3 of hi s cl ai m t hat he w as deni ed t he r i ght t o a s peedytr i al as t o t he m u r d e ra n d k i d n a p p i n g c h a r g e s ; t h a tc r o s s - a p p e a l was d i s mi s s ed percur i am byt hi s cour t
. See W as hi ngt on v. Sobi na, 475 F. 3d 162 ( 3d C i r . 20 0 7 ) (hol di ng r i ghtt o s peedyt r i al i s non- j ur i s di ct i onal an d there fo re w aive d b y v o lun taryan d u n co n d it ion al gu il typ lea). T h e S u p erior C o u rt n o ted, in ter a li a, tha t the P C R A co u rt 4 di s m i s s ed the pet i t i on w i t houtthe r equi r ed tw ent y -daynot i ce of i nt ent i on t o dism iss, a rul e i thad hel d t o be mandat oryal t hough t hat w as not r ai s ed on appea l , and t hat t he PC R A cour thad fa i l ed t o compl yw i t h i t s or der by fai l i ng t o not i fyi tof the det erm i nat i on w hetherW ashin g t on’ s w ai verof couns el w as pr oper . N ei t herof th e se m a tters is re lev a n t to th e iss u e o n a p p e a l. 8 notcons i derW as hi ngt on’ s pr o s e pos t
- s ent ence m ot i on t o be p e n d in g b e c a u se W a sh in g to n d id n o t h a v e th e a u th o rityto f ile p ro s e m o tio n s w h ile re p re s e n te d b yc o u n s e l.” Id . a t 4 7 4 -7 5
. T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hen r ej ect ed the governm ent ’ s cont ent i on t hatt he s peedyappea l cl ai m w as i nval i d beca us e W as hi ngt on fai l ed t o pr oper l yfi l e a not i ce of appea l
. T he C our tal s o r ej ect ed t he governm ent ’ s ar gum entthatthe not i ce of appea l had bee n w i t hdr aw n beca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tfound “bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hatthe appe al w as notw i t hdr aw n. ” I d. at 4 7 5
. T h e C o u rtthen co n d it ion all yg ran ted W ash ing ton ’s pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus bas ed on fa i l ur e of hi s s peedy appea l r i ght“unl es s t he Penns y l vani a Super i orC our tdeci des W a s h in g to n ’s d ir e c t a p p e a l b yM a rc h 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 .” Id . a t 4 7 7
. T h a t is th e o rd e r th e C o m m o n w e a lth a p p e a ls to th is c o u rt. 3 S ig n if ica n tly , h o w e v e r, af

ter th e D istric t C o u rt issu e d its opi ni on, t he Penns y l vani a Super i orC our ton D ece m ber23, 2 0 0 5 , d e c i d e d t h e a p p e a l p e n d i n g b e f o r e i tf r o m th e P CRA co u rt ’s ord er d ated Ju n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 d ism issi n g W ash ing ton ’s PC R A pet i t i on as unt i m el yfi l ed. T he Super i orC our t , al t hough d i s p l a y i n g s o me i mp a t i e n c e wi t h th e P CRA c o u r ti n s o me r es pect s , nevert hel es s agr eed w i t h t he PC R A cour tthat

4 W a sh in g to n ’s P C R A p e tit io n w a s u n tim e lyf iled . A lth o u g h it neverm ent i oned the PC R A cour t ’ s s t at ementthatthe appe al w as w i t hdr aw n, i n i t s r evi ew of “the t or tur ed pr ocedur al hi s t oryofS e c tio n 2 2 5 4 c o n f e rs ju risd ictio n o n a f

e d e ra l co u rt to 5 ent er t ai n w r i t s of habe as corpus “i n behal f of a per s on i n cus t ody pur s uantt o t he j udgm entof a St at e cour t
. ” W as hi ngt on ar gues t hat b e c a u se th e sta te trial c o u rt se n ten c e d h im o n so m e c h a rg e s w h ile other char ges r emai ned open, hi s appea l r i ght s w er e neve r tr igg ere d , an d there f

o re the sen tenc e is n o t a “jud g m en t” un d er § 2254. N otonl yw as t hi s i s s ue neve rr ai s ed i n the D i s t r i ctC our tor in W ash ing ton ’s resp o n se b ri ef to this co u rt , b u t W ash ing ton ’s ar gum entfai l s o n it s m eri t s . W e have hel d t hata s t at e pr i s oner chal l engi ng the v al i di t yorexec ut i on of hi s s t at e courts ent ence m us tr el yo n the m o r e s peci fi c pr ovi s i ons of § 2254 r atherthan § 2 2 4 1
. C o ad yv . V au g h n , 2 5 1 F
. 3 d 4 8 0 , 4 8 5 (3 d C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ). B e c a u se W a sh in g to n ’ s s p e e d ya p p e a l cla im a rg u e s th a t th e sta te 9 t h i s c a s e ” i tr e i t e r a t e d th a tp u r s u a n tt o th e P e n n s y l v a n i a P CRA s t atut e, anyPC R A pet i t i on m us tbe fi l ed w i t hi n one y earof the dat e the j udgm entbecomes fi nal
. A pp. at74. T he Super i or Co u r ts t a t e d t h a tW a s h i n g t o n ’ s j u d g me n to f s e n t e n c e b e c a me fi nal on M ay26, 1999, w hen the t i m e per i od al l ow ed forfi l i ng a di r ectappea l expi r ed, t hata t i m el ypet i t i on had t o be fi l ed by M a y2 6 , 2 0 0 0 , an d th a t W a sh in g to n ’s p e tit io n “ w o u ld a p p e a r to b e u n tim e ly, as it w a s n o t f ile d u n til J u ly 2 8 , 2 0 0 3 .” A p p . a t 7 8
. T h e c o u rtco n clud ed that n o n e o f th e statuto ryex ce p ti o n s w ere appl i cabl e, and “a s [W as hi ngt on] fai l s t o s ucce s s ful l yi nvoke any of the t i m e of f

i l i ng exce pt i ons cont ai ned i n t he A ct , the pet i t i on r emai ns unt i m el yfi l ed. ” A pp. at79. A ccor di ngl y , the Super i or C our taff i r m ed the or derof the PC R A cour tdi s m i s s i ng W as hi ngt on’ s PC R A pet i t i on as unt i m el yfi l ed. II. A l t hough W as hi ngt on fi l ed hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on under28 U
. S. C
. § 2254, and the D i s t r i ctC our texer ci s ed j ur i s di ct i on overhi s pet i t i on under28 U
. S. C
. § 2254( a) , he now cl ai m s t hathe s houl d have f i l ed hi s habea s pet i t i on under28 U
. S. C
. § 2241 w hi ch w oul d r el i eve hi m fr om the hei ght ened sta n d a rd s p re sc rib e d b yth e A n tit e rro rism a n d E f f e c tiv e D e a th Penal t yA ctof 1996 ( “A E D PA ”)
. W e r ej ectthatcl ai m forthe r eas ons s etfor th i n t he mar gi n. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthe 5cour t s w er e t o o slow i n r es ol vi ng hi s appea l r el at i ng t o the thr ee cou nts on w h ich he w as conv i ct ed, this cl ai m con st i tutes a chal l enge unde r§ 2254. T h is pr es um pt i on appl i es r egar dl es s of w hethert her e has 6 b ee n an “a d

jud icati o n o n the m erit s” p u rsua n t t o § 2 2 5 4 (d). N ara v . F ran k , 4 8 8 F
. 3 d 1 8 7 , 2 0 0 -01 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ). T hes e exc ept i ons ar e: 7 ( i ) t he fa i l ur e t o r ai s e the cl ai m pr evi ous l yw as t he r es ul tof i nt er fer ence by governm entoffi ci al s w i t h t he pr es ent at i on o f th e c laim in v io latio n o f th e C o n stitu tio n o r la w s o f th is C om m onw eal t h or t he C ons t i tut i on or l aw s of the U ni t ed S t at es; 10 D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi nal or derpur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. §§ 1291 and 2253. W e have pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof h a b e a s c o rp u s a n d re v ie w its f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o r c le a r e rr o r. R o lan v
. V au g h n , 4 4 5 F
. 3 d 6 7 1 , 6 7 7 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ). III . Sect i on 2254( e) ( 1) of A E D PA pr ovi des : “I n a pr ocee di ng i n s t i tu t e d b y a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra w r i to f

h a b e a s c o rp u s b y a p e rs o n in c u s to d yp u rs u a n t to th e ju d g m e n t o f a S ta te c o u rt , a det erm i nat i on of a f

actual i s s ue made bya St at e courts hal l be pr es um ed t o be corr ect
. T he appl i cants hal l have the bur den of r ebut t i ng t he pr es um pt i on of corr ectnes s bycl earand convi nci ng e v id e n c e .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (e )( 1 ).

6 T he t ouchs t one of A E D PA i s the r equi r ementthatfede r al habea s cour t s s houl d acc or d defe r ence t o t he fa ctual det erm i nat i ons of the s t at e court s . B oth t he PC R A cour tand the P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p e rio r C o u rt f o u n d th a t W a sh in g to n f a iled to f ile h is P C R A p e tit io n (a lleg in g d e n ial o f h is a p p e a l rig h ts) in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e tim e re q u ire m e n ts o f 4 2 P a . C o n s. S tat. A nn. § 9545( b) ( 1)
. T hats t atut e r equi r es a pet i t i onert o fi l e a PC R A pet i t i on w i t hi n one y earof the dat e the j udgm entbecomes f in a l, un les s o n e o f

th re e sta tu to rye x c e p tio n s a p p lies
. T h e sta te 7(i i) the f ac ts up o n w h ich th e c lai m is pred icated w ere unknow n t o the pet i t i onerand coul d nothave be en as cert ai ned bythe exe r ci s e of due di l i gence ; or ( i i i ) t he r i ghtas s ert ed i s a cons t i tut ion al ri ghtthatw as r ecogni zed byt he S upr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es or t he Supr eme C our tof Penns y l vani a af ter the t i m e per i od p ro v id e d in th is s e c tio n a n d h a s b e e n h e ld b yth a t co u rt to a p p l y r e t r o a c t i v e l y. 4 2 P a. C o n s. S tat
. A n n . § 9 5 4 5 (b)(1 )(i )-( ii i)
. 11 cour t s found thatnone of the s t atut oryexce pt i ons appl i ed, and t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d nothol d otherw i s e. W e tu r n f

r o m Wa s h i n g t o n ’ s f

a i l u r e t o f

i l e a t i me l yP CRA pet i t i on t o t he ce nt r al ques t i on befor e us , w hetherW as hi ngt on fil ed a ti m elyn o ti ce o f a p p ea l fo r his p u rpo rt ed d ir ec t app ea l. It i s uncont es t ed thatW as hi ngt on’ s at t orneyhanded a “N ot i ce of A ppeal ” t o a mem berof the C l erk’ s O ffi ce on M ar ch 5, 1999, b u t th e re is n o re f

e re n c e to a n yn o tice o f

a p p e a l o n th e sta te cour tdocket
. B as ed on i t s hol di ng thatno appea l w as pendi ng, t he PC R A cour tdi s m i s s ed W as hi ngt on’ s PC R A pet i t i on as unt i m el y . T he C om m onw eal t h ar gues thatthi s det erm i nat i on m u st b e g iv e n d e f

e re n c e b yth e f

e d e ra l h a b e a s c o u rt. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdecl i ned t o do s o, and di d notfol l ow t he C om m onw eal t h’ s r eques tt o aw ai tthe out come of t he p en d ing ap p ea l t o the S u p erior C o u rto f th e P C R A co u rt ’s deci s i on. I ns t ead, t he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed the C o m m o n w e a lth ’s r e q u e st th a t itsta yth e h a b e a s p ro c e e d in g to al l ow t he Super i orC our tt o deci de W as hi ngt on’ s appea l of the P C R A c o u rt’s d e c isio n “ [ b ]e c a u se W a sh in g to n ’s a p p e a l is still pendi ng . . . [and ther efor e] hi s j udgm enthas neverbecome fi nal forpurpos es of a PC R A pet i t i on. ” W as hi ngt on, 387 F. Supp. 2d at476. T hi s i s t r oubl i ng fors ever al r eas ons . I n t he fi r s tpl ace , t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on that“the s t at e courtl acks author i t yt o deci de W as hi ngt on’ s PC R A pet i t i on, ” i d. , runs12 co u n ter t o it s o w n d iscu ssion o f th e P C R A co u rt ’s de cisi o n . If t he D i s t r i ctC our tw as s ay i ng thatthe PC R A cour thad no ju risd ictio n b e c a u se W a sh in g to n ’s d ire c t ap p e a l w a s s til l out s t andi ng, t her e w as no r eas on forthe D i s t r i ctC our tt o have cons i der ed the PC R A cour t ’ s opi ni on atal l
. Y eti tdi d s o at s om e l ength. I f the D i s t r i ctC our tw as s ay i ng thatthe Super i or Co u r two u l d h a v e n o j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth e a p p e a l f r o m th e P CRA cour t ’ s deci s i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tw as over l ooki ng the pos s i bi l i t yt hatt he Super i orC our tw oul d have di s agr eed w i t h t he PC R A cour t ’ s deci s i on. W e have m ade c l earthati n t he eve ntof a conf l i ctbetw een the fa ctfi ndi ngs of the s t at e tr i al cour tand the s t at e appe l l at e court , defe r ence s houl d be gi ven t o t he ver s i on r eac hed byt he hi ghercour t
. D i cker s on v. V aughn, 90 F. 3d 87, 9 0 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 6 ). Forpurpos es of comi t y , i tw oul d have be en bett erpr act i ce fort he D i s t r i ctC our tt o have s t ay ed the pr ocee di ngs t o al l ow the Penns y l vani a Super i orC our tt o deci de W as hi ngt on’ s appea l of t he PC R A deci s i on. A l t hough doi ng s o w as notnece s s aryunder t he exha us t i on doctr i ne, “[a ] fede r al di s t r i ctcour t‘ s houl d gi ve c a re f u l co n sid e ra tio n to th e a p p ro p ria te d e m a n d s o f c o m ityin eff ectuat i ng i t s habea s corpus decr ee. ’ ” G i bbs v. Fr ank, 500 F
. 3d 20 2, 21 0 (3d C i r. 20 07 ) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed). B ecause “i m por t anti nt er es t s i n comi t yand fe der al i s m r equi r e def er ence t o fac tual det erm i nat i ons m ade by‘ al l s t at e court s , ’ ” R ol an, 445 F .3 d a t 6 7 9 (c itatio n o m itt e d ), co n sid e ra tio n s o f c o m ityw o u ld have be en bes ts erved i f the D i s t r i ctC our thad gi ven the Super i orC our tan oppor tuni t yt o cons i derW as hi ngt on’ s appea l befor e dec i di ng t he fe der al habea s pet i t i on. H ad the D i s t r i ct C our taw ai t ed the Super i orC our t ’ s opi ni on, i tw oul d have not ed t hatt he Super i orC our tdi d notr efe rt o t he s t at ementbythe P C R A c o u rt th a t W a s h in g to n ’s a p p e a l h a d b e e n w ith d ra w n . T h u s it w o u ld h a v e b e e n u n n e c e ss a ryf o r th e D istric t C o u rt to have c ons i der ed thats t at ementw hi ch i tthen found w as e rro n e o u s. B e c a u se th e S u p e rio r C o u rt d id n o t sta te o r in tim a te t hatW as hi ngt on’ s appea l w as w i t hdr aw n, w e do notcons i der t h a tp o s s i b i l i t y. Instea d , w e f

o cu s o n lyo n the P C R A co u rt ’s det erm i nat i on, aff

i r m ed bythe Super i orC our t , thatW as hi ngt onT h o mp s o n wa s d e c i d e d p r i o rt o th e e n a c t me n to f AE DP A, 8 and ther efor e i t s di s cus s i on of “f actual i s s ue” i nvol ved the i nt erpr et at i on of 28 U
. S. C
. § 2254( d) , the p red ec es s orof § 2 2 5 4 (e)(1). 13 d id n o t fi le an ef

fe cti v e n o ti ce o f a p p ea l. T h e D istri ct C o u rt r ej ect ed the governm ent ’ s ar gum entthatthe appe al w as not eff ect i vel yfi l ed bys t at i ng that“[t ] he s t at e courtr ecor d i ndi cat es t hatt he courtacc ept ed W as hi ngt on’ s not i ce of appea l
. ” W a sh in g to n , 3 8 7 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 4 7 4 . N o t o n lyis th a t co n tra ryto t he fi ndi ng of both t he PC R A cour tand the Super i orC our t , but ourr evi ew of the r ecor d convi nces us thatther e i s no bas i s for t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s contr aryfac tual fi ndi ng. I n r ej ect i ng the PC R A cour t ’ s fi ndi ngs , the D i s t r i ctC our ts t at ed: W h ile th e g o v e rn m e n t co n ten d s th a t th e sta te c o u rt c o u ld no tpo ssi blyhav e accep t ed W ashi ng t on ’s app eal becau se W a sh in g to n ’s p o st-s e n ten c e m o tio n w a s p e n d in g , itis equal l yl i kel yt hatthe courtdi d notcons i der W as hi ngt on’ s pr o s e pos t
- s ent ence m ot i on t o be pendi ng b ec au se W ash ing ton d id n o t hav e the au tho ri tyto f il e p ro se m o tio n s w h ile re p re se n ted b yc o u n se l. I d. at474- 75. T her e w as no r eas on forconj ectur e bythe D i s t r i ct C our t
. T he fa ctr emai ns thatther e i s no docketentr ys how i ng a fi l i ng of the not i ce of

appea l , w hi ch expl ai ns w hy“[t ] her e i s no r ecor d of the s t at e courtr ej ect i ng W as hi ngt on’ s appea l , ” an om i s s i on t he D i s t r i ctC our tbel i eved w as r el evant
. I d. at474 n. 47. T he fa ctt hatt he not i ce of appea l w as m arked “Recei ved A cce pt ed forR evi ew O nl y ” furt herdi s t i ngui s hes the tr eatm ent of thatdocumentfr om one thati s fi l ed. T h e o n lyex p lana ti o n w e c an fin d fo r th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s deci s i on i s t hati tappar ent l ydi d notr egar d t he fi ndi ng of the P C R A c o u rt th a t n o a p p e a l h a d b e e n f iled a s e n tit led to defe r ence . H ow ever , i n T hom ps on v. K eohane , 516 U
. S. 99, 111- 12 ( 1995) , t he Supr eme C our tdi ffe r ent i at ed “f actual i s s ues ” fr om ques t i ons of l aw , and not ed thati s s ues as t o “w hat

8 happene d, ” “s cene - and ac t i on- s ett i ng ques t i ons , ” as w el l as14 m at t er s t hattur n on t he appr ai s al of w i t nes s cr edi bi l i t yor demeanorar e cl ear l yfac tual and thus w arr anta pr es um pt i on of corr ectnes s under§ 2254( e)
. A l t hough the di s t i nct i on betw een fac tual and l egal ques t i ons i s “s om et i m es s l i ppery , ” i d. at111, w e have fol l ow ed the Supr eme C our t ’ s defi ni t i on of “f actual i s s ues ” as “bas i c, pr i m aryorhi s t or i cal fac t s : fac t s i n t he s ens e of a r eci t al of ext ernal event s and the cr edi bi l i t yof thei rnarr at or s . ” See B err ym an v. M or t on, 100 F. 3d 1089, 1094 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons and ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. “I ti s thes e ‘ fac tual i ssues’ t o w hich the st atutorypresum pti on of co rr ect ness p re d o m in a te ly re la te s .” Id . (c itin g T h o m p s o n , 5 1 6 U .S . a t 1 1 0 ). U ndert he s t atut or ys t andar ds governi ng the gr ant i ng of habea s r el i ef, a s t at e court ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs m us tbe r ebut t ed by cl earand convi nci ng evi dence
. See Lam ber tv. B l ackw el l , 387 F .3 d 2 1 0 , 2 3 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c itin g 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (e )( 1 ))
. D efe r ence acc or ded a s t at e court ’ s det erm i nat i on of fa cti s not l i mi t l e s s , a n d “ d o e s n o tb yd e f i n i t i o n p r e c l u d e r e l i e f

, ” M i l l e r - El v. C ockr el l , 537 U
. S. 322, 340 ( 2003) ; nevert hel es s , the bur den i s on t he habe as pet i t i onert o r ebutthe pr es um pt i on of corr ectnes s bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence
. I ti s notenough t o deci de thatt he pet i t i onerhas advanc ed a pl aus i bl e al t ernat i ve t o t he fa ctual fi ndi ngs of the s t at e court
. See M art i ni v. H en d ri ck s, 3 4 8 F
. 3 d 3 6 0 , 3 6 8 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rt , in co n clud ing that the P C R A co u rt ’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t n o n o tice o f a p p e a l w a s f

iled w a s in c o rre c t, fai l ed t o cr edi tt he PC R A cour t ’ s det erm i nat i on beca us e, as the D is tr ic t C o u rt e x p la in e d , th e re c o rd w a s s ile n t o n th e q u e s tio n . I ti s pr eci s el ybeca us e the Super i orC our tnot ed thatthe not i ce of ap p ea l w as a cc ep ted f

o r rev iew o n lyb u t th at th ere w as n o en try on t he docke tfort he not i ce of appea l thati t s det erm i nat i on that no appea l w as fi l ed mer i t s defe r ence . C f. W eeks v. Sny der , 219 F .3 d 2 4 5 , 2 5 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (“ [ A n ] im p licit f a c tu a l f in d in g is du e t he sam e highl y[def erent i al ] pr esum pti on of co rr ect ness re q u ire d b y§ 2 2 5 4 (e ).”) . S ilen c e in th e re c o rd is in su f f icie n t to over come t hatpr es um pt i on, es peci al l yi n l i ghtof the fa ctthatthe j udge w ho w as i nvol ved i n W as hi ngt on’ s s ent enci ng w as the s ame j udge w ho di s m i s s ed W as hi ngt on’ s PC R A pet i t i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n fi ndi ng thatther e w as cl earandW e no t e t ha tW a s hingt on ’ s t r i a l c ou ns e l , Char l e s P. 9 M i r ar chi , I I I , fi l ed an aff i davi tw i t h the D i s t r i ctC our ti n w hi ch he s t at ed thatt he appe al h ad neverbeen di s m i s s ed and thathe w as to ld “ th a t a n a p p e a l o n a p a rt ia l v e rd ic t c o u ld n o t b e p ro s e c u te d .” W as h. A pp. at15-16
. H ow ever , w e do notfi nd t hi s as s ert i on c o n v in c in g , as W a sh in g to n a ttem p ted to tak e a n a p p e a l f ro m h is s ent ence , notfr om t he ver di ct
. See C om m onw eal t h v. O ’ N ei l l , 578 A .2 d 1 3 3 4 , 1 3 3 5 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 1 9 9 0 ) (“[ I]t is w e ll se ttl e d th a t in cr i m i nal cas es appeal s l i e fr om j udgm entof s ent ence r athert han fro m the v erd icto f g u il t[. ]”). R ul e 1925( b) s t at es t hatw her e ther e has been a not i ce of 10 appea l , t he l ow er cour t “may ent er an or der di r ect i ng t he appe l l ant t o fil e of record i n the tri al cou rtand serve on the j ud ge a co ncis e s t at ementof the er r or s compl ai ned of on t he appeal
. ” Pa. R
. A pp. P
. 1925( b)
. I n t hi s cas e, t he s t at e tr i al j udge or der ed couns el for W a sh in g to n to re sp o n d to h is or d e r w ith in th irtyd a y s, o r b yA p ril 15, 1 9 9 9. T he A pr i l 30, 1999 O r ders et t i ng for t h a pr ocedur al hi s t or yof W as hi ngt on’ s pos t
- s ent ence fi l i ngs l i ste d t he M ar ch 5 appea l acc ept ed forr evi ew onl y and t he M ar ch 15 orde rr eques t i ng a c o n c ise sta tem e n t. 15 convi nci ng evi dence t o overturn t he s t at e courtdet erm i nat i on s i m pl ybeca us e ther e w as a l ack of evi dence i n t he r ecor d s t at i ng t hatt he appe al had bee n di s m i s s ed. M or eover , t he D i s t r i ctC our tfai l ed t o pl ace the bur den on W as hi ngt on, as r equi r ed by§ 2254( e) ( 1)
. W as hi ngt on di d not m eett hatbur den as he i ntr oduced nothi ng per s uas i ve on the i s s ue. I ns t ead, t he D i s t r i ctC our tengage d i n a s pecul at i ve,

9 i ndepende ntanal y s i s t o fi nd thatthe not i ce of appea l w as p rop erlyfil ed , ev en tho u g h itw as n ev er d o ck eted in state co u rt and the PC R A t r i al and appe l l at e court s found thatW as hi ngt on had fa i l ed t o fi l e i t
. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatthe r ecor d i ndi cat ed thatt he s t at e courthad ac cept ed the not i ce of a p p e a l b e c a u se th e re w a s n e v e r a d ism iss a l o f th e n o tice , an d it st at ed thatt he fa ctt hat the st at e cou rtordered a con ci se sta tem e n t o f

m a tters c o m p lain e d o f

o n a p p e a l p u rsu a n t to R u le 1925( b) of the R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e “s ugges t s thatat 10 t he t i m e the or der[of A pr i l 30, 1999, l i s t i ng s om e ofA s fur t hers uppor tforourpos i t i on, w e not e thatt he U ni t ed 11 St at es Supr eme C our tand thi s cour thave r epea t edly h eld, i n the co n text o f th e A E D P A tolling p rov isi o n , 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 4 4 (d)(2 ), t h a twh e n a p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n i s n o tt i me l yu n d e rs t a t e l a w, “‘ t hat[i s ] t he end of

t he mat t er ’ forpurpos es of § 2244( d) ( 2)
. ” P a c e , 5 4 4 U .S . a t 4 1 4 (c itatio n o m itt e d ); se e a lso A llen v . S ieb e rt, 16 W as hi ngt on’ s pr ocedur al hi s t ory ] w as i s s ued .
. . the appe al w as s t i l l pendi ng. ” W as hi ngt on, 387 F. Supp. 2d at474 n. 47. B ut s ee Satt er fi el d v. J ohns on, 434 F. 3d 185, 192 ( 3d C i r . 2006) (“T h e m ere fa ct th at a c o u rtrev iew ed an ap p li ca ti o n b ef o re di s m i s s i ng i tdoes notnece s s ar i l ym ean thatan appl i cat i on w as ‘ pr oper l yfi l ed. ’ ”) ( ci t i ng Pace v. D i G ugl i el m o, 544 U
. S. 408, 4 1 4 (20 0 5 )). T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso a d d re ss e d th e f a c t th a t th e sta te t r i al cour trul ed on W as hi ngt on’ s pr o s e pos t
- s ent ence m ot i on, wh i c h i tc o u l d n o td o i f a n a p p e a l wa s i n f

a c tf i l e d
. S e e P a . R. A p p . P . 1 7 0 1 (a ) ( “ a f

te r a n a p p e a l is ta k e n . . . th e tr ia l c o u rt
. . . m ayno l ongerpr ocee d fur t heri n t he mat t er ”)
. R atherthan i nfer fr om t hi s t hatt he tr i al cour tbel i eved no appeal w as pendi ng, the D istri ct C o u rtstat ed that “itis eq u all yli k elythat the [ stat e] c o u rt di d notcons i derW as hi ngt on’ s pr o s e pos t
- s ent ence m ot i on t o be p e n d in g b e c a u se W a sh in g to n d id n o t h a v e th e a u th o rityto f ile pr o s e mot i ons w hi l e r epr es ent ed bycouns el
. ” W as hi ngt on, 387 F. Supp. 2d at474- 75 ( ci t i ng C om m onw eal t h v. Pur s el l , 724 A .2 d 2 9 3 , 3 0 1 -0 2 (P a . 1 9 9 9 )). T h e re w a s n o b a sis f o r th is hypo t hesi s. B ecause the tri al cou rtrul ed o n W ashi ng t on ’s pro se m ot i on, t he l ogi cal i nfer ence i s thatthe not i ce of appea l had not been a cce pt ed bec aus e otherw i s e the tr i al cour tw oul d no l onger ha ve ha d j ur i s di c t i on ov e rthe mat t e r . Se e Pa
. R. A pp . P. 1 7 0 1 (a ). W e th e re f

o re c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in engagi ng i n s pecul at i ve, i ndepende ntfac tfi ndi ng contr aryt o t he det erm i nat i ons of the PC R A and Super i orC our t s that W ash ing ton fa il ed to f

il e a ti m elyn o ti ce o f a p p ea l. T h e C o u rt s houl d have a ccor ded thos e fi ndi ngs a pr es um pt i on of c o r r e c t n e s s , a n d p l a c e d th e b u r d e n o n W a s h i n g t o n t o c o me

11___ U
. S
. ___ , 1 2 8 S
. C t. 2 , 4 (20 0 7 ). “O n ce the P en n sy lvan ia co u rt has s o deci ded, i tw oul d be a n u n d u e i nt er fer ence fora fe der al di s t r i ctcour tt o deci de otherw i s e. ” M err i t t v. B l ai ne, 326 F. 3d 157, 1 6 8 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). A r guabl y , t he fa i l ur e t o fi l e a t i m el yappea l co u l d be con si dered a proced ural defa ult , bu tbecau se the p art i es have no tso ar gued w e do notanal y ze thi s appea l i n t hos e t erm s . See Tre s tv. C ai n, 522 U
. S. 87, 89 ( 1997) ; Sm it h v . H orn, 120 F. 3d 400, 409 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 7 ). f o r w a r d w i t h c l e a ra n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t o th e c o n t r a r y. W e f e e l co m p e lled to n o te th a t m u c h o f th e d if f icu ltyin w h ich W a sh in g to n f

in d s h im se lf

is o f h is o w n m a k in g . H is pencha ntforfi l i ng pr o s e pl eadi ngs w hi l e he ha d couns el s erved to c o n f u se th e p ro c e e d in g s. M o re o v e r, a f a c t n o t em p h a siz e d in th e C o m m o n w e a lth ’s b rie f b u t o n e th a t w e f

in d sig n if

ica n t is t hatW as hi ngt on w as on not i ce a s ear l yas J anuary30, 2002, that t he Super i orC our tbel i eved thatther e w as no appea l pendi ng as t hat w as the reason itgav e for dis m i ssi ng W ashi ng t on ’s fi rs t s t at e habe as pet i t i on. I V. Fort he above

- s t at ed r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or der , r emand t o t hatC our t , and di r ectthati tdeny W ashi ng t on ’s P et i t i on for a W ri tof H abeas C orpus.

_____________________