1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TROY DEBROEUX : CIVIL ACTION 

:

v. :

:

SUPT. CHARLES ERICKSON, ET AL. : NO. 05-1673

ORDER

AND NOW, this 6th day of July, 2006, upon consideration of Debroeux’s Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus, Defendants’ Response thereto, Magistrate Judge Rueter’s Report and

Recommendation, and Debroeux’s Objections thereto, it appearing that: 

a. Petitioner Debroeux, presently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution

Retreat, Hunlock Creek, Pennsylvania, was convicted of aggravated assault,

recklessly endangering another person, and violation of the Uniform Firearms Act

on April 3, 2002, in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County. On the

same date he was sentenced to a term of five to fifteen years for the aggravated

assault and two and a half to five years, to be served concurrently, for the firearms

violation. No further penalty was imposed for the reckless endangerment

conviction. 

b. On April 25, 2002, Debroeux filed a Motion to Modify Sentence, which was

denied on May 3, 2002. On June 9, 2004, the trial court denied Debroeux’s 

Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence because the motion was filed after the

prescribed 30 days from the sentencing date and the trial court no longer had

jurisdiction over the case. 

c. Debroeux did not appeal the trial court’s decision to the Superior Court of

Pennsylvania. Instead, on July 26, 2004, Debroeux filed a first petition for a writ

of habeas corpus in this court (Debroeux v. Erickson, et al., 04-CV-3523). By

Order of September 29, 2004, the court adopted Magistrate Judge Rueter’s Report

and Recommendation, found Debroeux had not exhausted state remedies, and

dismissed Debroeux’s petition without prejudice. The Order noted that

“Petitioner may file a petition under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act

(PCRA).” 

d. Instead of filing a PCRA petition, Debroeux filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on December 20, 2004. The

Case 2:05-cv-01673-NS Document 13 Filed 07/07/06 Page 1 of 2
2

Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed the petition on March 9, 2005. 

e. On April 11, 2005, Debroeux filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

f. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Thomas Rueter found:

Debroeux’s conviction became final on May 2, 2002, when the time for filing a

direct appeal expired; under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), enacted as part of the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the statute of

limitations on that conviction expired on May 3, 2003; statutory tolling is not

triggered by Debroeux’s second motion to reconsider his sentence, his first

petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this court, or his petition for a writ of

habeas corpus in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; and Debroeux had shown no

grounds for equitable tolling. The Report and Recommendation concluded that

Debroeux’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed as timebarred and that no certificate of appealability should be granted. 

g. Debroeux, filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation, argues a

challenge to the legality of a sentence is not governed by AEDPA. This is

incorrect; challenges to sentences are subjected to the AEDPA statute of

limitations. See, e.g., Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (U.S. 2005)

(considering appropriateness of equitable tolling of AEDPA statute of limitations

where petitioner claimed, among other things, that his sentence was illegal);

Lomazoff v. Walters, 63 F. Supp. 2d 663, 666-67 (E.D. Pa. 1999) (rule of

Pennsylvania law providing that illegal sentences can never be waived and may be

reviewed sua sponte by an appellate court does not override AEDPA time

limitations that bar review by federal court).

It is therefore ORDERED that: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Paper # 10) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 

2. Debroeux’ Objections (Paper # 11) are OVERRULED;

3. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; 

4. A Certificate of appealability is NOT GRANTED. 

 /s/ Norma L. Shapiro 

S.J. 

Case 2:05-cv-01673-NS Document 13 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 2