2005 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 Third C ir c uit 8-8-2005 

# W olfe v . Frank P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 02-4003

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 2005 D e c i sion s by 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 more 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 o l fe v . F r ank " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 726. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005/726NOT 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. 02- 4003

A R T H U R L E R O Y W O L F E , III , A ppel l ant v. F R E D E R IC K F R A N K ; AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE S T A T E O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

ON A P P EAL F ROM AN O RDER OF THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C O U R T F O R T H E M ID D L E D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

( D i s t . C our tN o. 99- cv- 00456) D istric t C o u rt Ju d g e : A . R ich a rd C a p u to Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y12, 2005 B efor e: A L I T O , B E C K E R , and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges OP I NI ON ( Fi l ed: A ugus t8, 2005)T h e ro b b e ryc h a rg e w a s e v e n tu a llyv a c a ted o n c o llate ra l re v iew b e c a u se it sh o u ld 1 h a v e m e rg e d w ith th e m u rd e r c h a rg e u n d e r t h e f e lo n ym u rd e r d o c tr in e . 2 P E R C U R IA M : A r thurW ol fe a ppeal s fr om the or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a deny i ng hi s m ot i on forw r i tof habe as corpus under28 U . S. C . § 2254. W e af

fi r m . B eca us e w e w r i t e onl yforthe part i es , w e do notr eci t e the f a c ts in d e ta il. O n A pr i l 22, 1986, W ol fe pl ed gui l tyt o m ur der , r obbery , and cons pi r acyi n the C u m b e rla n d C o u n tyC o u rt o f C o m m o n P lea s. T h a t sa m e d a y , the C o u rt h e ld a h e a rin g to 1 d e ter m in e W o lf

e ’s le v e l o f

g u ilto n th e m u rd e r c h a rg e . T w o w e e k s la ter , itc o n v icte d h im of s econd de gr ee mur der . W ol fe w as s ent ence d t o l i fe i m pr i s onm entforthe murde r c h a rg e a n d a n a d d itio n a l o n e to te n y e a rs f o r c o n s p ir a c y . I n 1991, W ol fe f

i l ed a pe t i t i on underPenns y l vani a’ s PostC onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct ( “PC R A ”) , chal l engi ng hi s convi ct i on on thr ee gr ounds . H e ar gued that : 1) hi s gui l typl ea w as notvol unt arybeca us e he di d notunder s t and the natur e of the cha r ges agai ns thi m ; 2) hi s convi ct i on w as i nval i d beca us e i tw as bas ed on mat er i al m i s r epr es ent at i ons of fa ctby p o lice w itn e ss e s d u rin g th e c o llo q u y ; an d 3 ) h is c o u n se l w a s in e f f e c tiv e in f

a ili n g to as s erta dur es s defe ns e r atherthan r ecomm endi ng a gui l typl ea. T he PC R A courtdeni ed hi s pet i t i on, and the Super i orC our taff i r m ed. I n 2002, the D i s tr i ctC our tal s o deni ed W o lf e ’s p e tit io n , h o ld in g th a t th e sta te c o u rts d id n o t co n tra v e n e o r u n re a so n a b lya p p ly3

c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d f

e d e ra l la w . U n d er the A n ti terrori sm an d E ff ec ti v e D ea th P en altyA ct of 1 9 9 6 (“A E D P A ”), W ol fe’ s habea s pet i t i on m us tbe deni ed unl es s the s t at e court s ’ deci s i ons “r es ul t ed i n a d e c isio n th a t w a s c o n tra ryto , o r in v o lv e d a n u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n o f , cle a rly e s ta b lis h e d F e d e ra l la w , a s d e te rm in e d b yth e S u p re m e C o u rto f th e U n ite d S ta te s ; o r . . . re su lted in a d e c isio n th a t w a s b a se d o n a n u n re a so n a b le d e ter m in a tio n o f th e f a c ts in l i ghtof the evi dence pr es ent ed i n the St at e courtpr ocee di ng. ” 28 U . S. C . § 2254( d) ; s ee also W il li am s v . T ay lor, 5 2 9 U . S . 3 6 2 , 3 8 4 -90 (20 0 0 ). S tat e c o u rtfin d ing s o f f ac t are p re s u m e d c o rr e c t u n le s s re b u tte d b yc le a r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (e )( 1 ). W ol fe f i r s tar gues thathi s pl ea c ol l oquyw as t ai nt ed bec aus e i tdi d noti ncl ude an a d e q u a te e x p lan a tio n o f th e e lem e n t o f

in ten t f o r se c o n d d e g re e m u rd e r. B o th sta te c o u rts h eld th at, co n side ri n g the to tal ityo f th e c ir cu m stan ce s, the e lem en ts of ea ch crim e w ere expl ai ned i n s uffi ci entdet ai l forW ol fe t o know i ngl y , vol unt ar i l y , and w i l l i ngl ypl ead g u il ty . S ee C o m m o n w ea lth v . S h af fe r, 4 4 6 A . 2 d 5 9 1 (P a. 19 8 2 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rt f o u n d th a t“ s u f

f i c i e n te v i d e n c e e x i s t s t o j u s t i f yth e s t a t e c o u r t s ’ c o n c l u s i o n . ” A p p . 8 . We a g re e . In p a rticu lar , as th e P C R A c o u rt f o u n d , the in ten t ele m e n t “w a s c o v e re d in D et ect i ve D ougherty ’ s acc ountof how the . . . r obberyand murde roccurr ed. [W ol fe] w as a d v ise d th a t th e f

a c ts a s re c ited b yD e tec tiv e D o u g h e rtyc o n stitu ted c rim e s a n d th a t if thos e w er e true, a j urycoul d fi nd [W ol fe] gui l tyof thos e cr i m es . A ccor di ngl y , [W ol fe]S ee C om m on w eal th v . F l uh arty , 63 2 A . 2d 31 2, 31 5 (Pa. Sup er. C t . 19 93 ) ( “T hu s, 2 e v e n th o u g h th e re is a n o m iss io n o r d e f e c t in th e g u iltyp lea c o llo q u y , a p lea o f g u iltyw ill notbe dee m ed i nval i d i f the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng the entryof the pl ea di s cl os e that the def endanthad a f

ul l under s t andi ng of the natur e and c ons equenc es of hi s pl ea a nd that h e k n o w in g ly an d v o lu n ta ri ly d e c id e d to e n te r t h e p le a .” ). 4 under s t ood the natur e of the cha r ges and w hatthe pl ea c onnot ed and i t s cons equenc es . ” A p p . 2 3 4 ; see a lso A p p . 2 7 3 (“T h e c o u rtrep ea tedlyask ed W o lfe if the d etec ti v e’s re c itatio n o f

th e f a c ts a s h e u n d e rsto o d th e m w a s a c c u ra te, a n d W o lf e re p e a ted ly a n sw e re d ‘y e s.’” ). T h is h o ld in g w a s in a c c o rd w ith P e n n sy lv a n ia la w , a n d W o lf e p o in ts 2 to n o d e c is io n s d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t it o f f e n d s f e d e ra l la w a s re q u ir e d b yA E D P A . N ext , W ol fe c ont ends thathi s convi ct i on w as bas ed on mat er i al m i s r epr es ent at i ons of fa ctbyD et ect i ve D oughertydur i ng the pl ea c ol l oquy . W ol fe a dm i t t ed bef or e the D i stri ctC ou rtthat the all eged m i sr epresent at i on s w ere not“per se” fal se, see A pp . 8-9, so hi s cl ai m i s actual l ythatthe D et ect i ve emphas i zed c ert ai n fac t s , w hi l e omi t t i ng or d o w n p layi n g o th e rs. T h is c laim lac k s m e rit. In a d d iti o n to re p e a ted lya sk in g W o lf e if D e tec tiv e D o u g h e rty ’s s tate m e n ts w e re tru e , the C o u rt o f C o m m o n P lea s a sk e d if D et ect i ve D ougherty ’ s s t oryw as “w hathappene d i n thi s cas e. ” A pp. 7- 8. T he col l oquy ther efor e addr es s ed notj us tthe ver aci tyof the D et ect i ve’ s s t at ement s , butal s o the pos s i bi l i tythathe mayhave l efts om ethi ng out . W ol fe ha d the opportuni tyt o s uppl ement th e re c o rd a t th a t tim e , b u t h e c h o s e n o t to d o s o . Fi nal l y , W ol fe c l ai m s thathe w as deni ed the ef fec t i ve as s i s t ance of couns elT o pr evai l on a dur es s defe ns e, a def endantm us tpr ove thr ee e l ement s : 1) an 3 i m m edi at e ori m m i nentthr eatof dea th ors er i ous bodi l yi nj ury ; 2) a w el l gr ounded or re a so n a b le f

e a r th a t th e th re a t w ill b e c a rrie d o u t; an d 3 ) n o re a so n a b le o p p o rtu n ityto es cape the thr eatand harm exce ptbycomm i t t i ng a cr i m i nal act . C om m onw eal th v. M o rn in g w a k e , 5 9 5 A .2 d 1 5 8 , 1 6 4 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 1 9 9 1 ). 5 beca us e hi s l aw y erfai l ed t o r ecogni ze a nd advi s e hi m of a dur es s defe ns e. A l l thr ee 3 c o u rts re jec ted th is a rg u m e n t, alb e it o n d if f e re n t g ro u n d s. T h e sta te c o u rts h e ld th a t a dur es s defe ns e w oul d have be en unava i l abl e bec aus e W ol fe di d notfea rR obi ns on, and b e c a u se “ W o lf

e ’s v e rsio n o f

th e e v e n ts s u rro u n d in g th e e v e n in g in q u e stio n is re p lete w i th i nt ent i onal l yi gnor ed opportuni t i es forW ol fe t o extr i cat e hi m s el f fr om an eve ni ng do om ed from the st art . ” A pp . 27 6-79. Th e D i stri ctC ou rtcon cl ud ed thata du res s defen se w oul d have be en ava i l abl e, butdeni ed r el i ef be caus e W ol fe pl ed gui l tyas “an e qual and w illin g p a rt ic ip a n t in th e ro b b e ry w h o h e lp e d f o rm u la te th e p la n .” A p p . 1 2 . U n d er A E D P A ’s stri ctl yli m it ed stan d ard s o f ju d ici al rev iew , w e c an n o t ov erturn th e f in d in g s o f

th e sta te c o u rt o n th is re c o rd . T h e sta te c o u rts re late th e f a c ts le a d in g u p to the r obberyand murde ri n s i gni fi cantdet ai l , and W ol fe ha s notcome forw ar d w i th cl ear a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e to re b u t th e p re s u m p tio n th a t th e s e f in d in g s w e re c o rr e c t. A c c o rd in g ly , w e h o ld th a t sta te c o u rts’ d e c isio n s w e re n o t b a se d o n a n u n re a so n a b le d e te rm in a tio n o f

th e f a c ts in lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e p re s e n te d . W e th e re f

o re a f f ir m th e o rd e r o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .