HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0991-1998
COMMONWEALTH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
NICHOLAS A. PRACHT
CP-2l-CR-099l-l998
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR POST
CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF ET AL.
BEFORE OLER, J.
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT
OLER, 1., December 9,2004.
In this criminal case in which Defendant's judgment of sentence was
affirmed on direct appeal by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in 2001,1 he has
recently filed a Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief as well as numerous
other pro se documents. This request of Defendant for relief under the Post
Conviction Relief Act is his third.
Defendant's first request for post conviction relief was filed during the
pendency of his direct appeal and was dismissed for that reason, without
prejudice? Defendant's second request for post conviction relief raised a plethora
of issues, was the subject of a hearing, and was ultimately denied by this court
with a lengthy opinion. 3 An appeal from this denial to the Superior Court was
voluntarily discontinued by Defendant. 4 Defendant has now filed a third request
for post conviction relief,s along with ten other hand-written documents of a
similar nature.
1 Order of Superior Court, May 8, 2001, 106 MDA 1999; Commonwealth v. Pracht, 778 A.2d
1246 (Pa. Super. 2001).
2 Order of Court, December 16, 1999.
3 Order and Opinion of Court, December 31, 2003.
4 Discontinuance Order, Commonwealth v. Pracht, No. 331 MDA 2004 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 8,
2004).
5 Defendant's Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief #3, filed September 2,2004.
The most-recently filed documents bear the following titles:
Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief;
Motion To Dismiss Indictments Due to Unconstitutional
Statutes, All of Which Violate Due Process;
A Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus Challenging Both
the Legality of My Detention Plus the Conditions of My
Confinement in the P.D.O.C.;
Application/Request for Leave of Court (Due to "Good
Cause" and Exceptional Circumstances Plus Absolute/Legal
"innocence") for (P.C.RA.) Post Conviction Relief Act
Discovery (and Pa RCrim.P. Rule 902(E)(1)(2);
Motion for Extraordinary Relief To Challenge the
Constitutionality of the "Sexually Violent Predator" Provisions
of Pennsylvania's "Megan's Law" To Suppress Evidence, To
Bar ex Post Facto Prosecution, and To Bar a Second
Prosecution for the Same Offense;
Application/Petition for Extraordinary Relief To
Challenge the Constitutionality of Corruption of Minors,
Statutory Rape, IDSI Infant Crimes Enhancement Mandatory
Minimum, the "85% Law", and "Megan's Law" and Insanity
Defense and Extended Statute of Limitation Laws All As
Violative of Procedural Due Process Again for All the Same
Reasons Cited in Commonwealth v. Williams (733 A.2d 593);
Hitch Motion To Dismiss Both Indictments/Convictions
Due to Outrageous Government (D .A.lPolice/Prison
Official/Judicial/Appellate Court/Amici Curiae Defense
Counsel Misconduct Evincing a Pattern of Both "Similar Acts"
and "Bad-Acts" Evidence Which Exudes a Chronic/Deliberate
Disregard of the Accused's/Petitioner's Due Process Rights;
An Application for Leave of Court To Waive and/or
Modify Rules Concerning Pa RAP 124/2189 As Well As
PCRA Forms Witness D.O.B. Requirement;
Petition To Supplement the Record (via PaRAP Rule
126);
A Petition To Supplement the PCRA Record; and
A Petition To Supplement the PCRA Record.6
6 These petitions, motions and applications were docketed September 2,2004.C
2
Many of these items were filed in violation of a pnor order of court
directing that Defendant in his filings not join this case with a separate case in
which he was a defendant, docketed at No. 2002-0133 Criminal Term
(Cumberland CO.).7 Due to his numerous filings, the docket entries in the present
case now extend to 21 pages. Defendant is currently incarcerated at Graterford
State Correctional Institution in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. 8
For the reasons stated in this opinion, notice will be given of the court's
intention to dismiss Defendant's latest filings, in accordance with Pennsylvania
Rule of Criminal Procedure 907(1).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On October 28, 1998, a jury found Defendant guilty of four counts of
involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and four counts of corruption of minors, 9
stemming from a sexual relationship he had with a young boy.l0 The case was not
, 11
a Megan s Law case.
On December 8, 1998, Defendant was sentenced by the Honorable George
E. Hoffer of this court to a total term of imprisonment of six to fifteen years,12 and
a direct appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court was filed by Defendant.13 At
least nine issues were raised by Defendant on his direct appeal, and on a single day
he filed sixteen different motions with the Superior Court. 14
7 See Order of Court, October 17, 2003.
8 See Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief #3 at 2.
9 Verdict and Order ofCt., Oct. 28, 1998.
10 See Commonwealth v. Pracht, May 4, 1998 Police Criminal Complaint.
11 NT. 29-30, Hearing (on Defendant's second PCRA petition), July 23,2003.
12 Sentence, Dec. 8, 1998 (Hoffer, PJ.).
13 Defendant's Notice of Appeal, filed January 7, 1999.
14 See Memorandum Opinion, Commonwealth v Pracht, No. 106 MDA 1999, at 4-5 (May 8,
2001).
3
During the pendency of the direct appeal, Defendant filed a request in this
court for post conviction relief, 15 which was dismissed as premature.16 The
Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on May 8, 2001.17
Defendant's second request for post conviction relief was filed on March
25,2002.18 A hearing on the request was held on July 23,2003. An order issued
on December 31, 2003, denied the petition and was accompanied by a 43-page
opinion which set forth in detail the history of the case and provided the rationale
for disposition of numerous issues raised by Defendant, including various
allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.19 A copy of the opinion on
Defendant's second petition for post conviction relief is attached to this opinion as
an Appendix.
Defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court from the denial of
his request on March 1, 2004,20 and discontinued the appeal on July 8, 2004?1
Defendant's third request for post conviction relief, and related petitions, motions
and applications, sub judice were docketed on September 2, 2004.22 Although the
gist of the filings can sometimes be gleaned from their titles, the contents are often
of questionable import (e.g., "L'il Johnny Mower was born to a Mary
Magdelene/prostitute/slut for Druids/Freemansons/Satanists . . . . ,,23), mcompre-
hensible or illegible.
15 Defendant's Post Conviction Relief Act Motion, filed August 25, 1999.
16 Order of Court, December 13, 1999.
17 Order of Super. Ct., May 8, 2001, 106 JDA 1999; Commonwealth v. Pracht, 778 A.2d 1246
(Pa. Super. 2001).
18 Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, filed March 25,2002.
19 Opinion and Order of Court, December 31, 2003, No. 331 MDA 2004 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 8,
2004.
20 Defendant's Notice of Appeal, filed March 1,2004.
21 Discontinuance Order, Commonwealth v. Pracht, 331 MDA 2004, filed July 8, 2004.
22 Defendant's Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief et aI., filed September 2,2004.
23 A Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus Challenging Both the Legality of My Detention Plus the
Conditions of My Confinement in the P.D.O.C., at 13.
4
DISCUSSION
Several principles of law are pertinent to a disposition of Defendant's
various petitions, motions and applications in the nature of requests for post
conviction relief. Each of these principles tends to militate against a favorable
disposition of Defendant's claims sub judice
First, it may be noted that the proper forum for resolution of a habeas
corpus petition challenging the conditions of a petitioner's confinement is the
court of common pleas of the county where the prisoner is confined. Pa. R. Crim.
P. 108(B); see Bronson v. Domovich, 427 Pa. Super. 312, 628 A.2d 1177 (1993).
Venue does not lie in the court of the county where the prisoner was sentenced.
Id
Second, under Section 9545(b) of the Judicial Code, requests for post
conviction relief must "be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes
final, unless the petition alleges and the petitioner proves that:
(i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result
of interference by government officials with the presentation of
the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this
Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United
States;
(ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were
unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained
by the exercise of due diligence; or
(iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was
recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided
in this section and has been held by that court to apply
retroactively. "
Act of May 13,1982, P.L. 417,92, as amended, 42 Pa. C.S. 99545(b)(1).
In this context, "a judgment becomes final at the conclusion of direct
review, including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the United States
and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking
the review." Id, at 99545(b )(3).
5
Untimeliness is not excused by the voluntary withdrawal of an earlier
petition. Place, The Post Conviction Relief Act 96.01, at 108 (rev, ed. 2004); see
Commonwealth v. Rienzi, 573 Pa. 503, 827 A.2d 369 (2003). "A second or
subsequent petition must be filed within one year of the date the judgment of
sentence becomes final unless one of the exceptions to the one-year period
applies." Place, The Post Conviction Relief Act 95.01, at 98 (2004-05 ed. 2004).
The statutory time constraints for filing a petition under the Post Conviction
Relief Act implicate the jurisdiction of the court. Place, The Post Conviction
Relief Act 96.01, at 108 (rev. ed. 2004); see Commonwealth v. Fahy, 558 Pa. 313,
737 A.2d 214 (1999).
Third, under Section 9578(a) of the Judicial Code, "[n]o further review
shall be available [following disposition of a prior petition for post conviction
relief] unless a petition is filed. . . alleging that:
(1) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result
of interference by government officials with the presentation of
the claim in violation of the Constitution of the United States
or laws of the United States or the Constitution of
Pennsylvania or laws of this Commonwealth;
(2) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were
unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained
in the exercise of due diligence; or
(3) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was
recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided
in this section and has been held by that court to apply
retroactively. "
Act of November 17, 1995, P.L. 1118, 92, 42 Pa. C.S. 99578(a). "Any petition
invoking [one or more of the foregoing exceptions] shall be filed within 60 days of
the date the claim could have been presented." Id
Finally, under Section 9544 of the Judicial Code, a request for post
conviction relief is not available where "the allegation of error [relied upon by the
petitioner] has. . . been previously litigated or waived." Act of May 13, 1982,
6
P.L. 417, 92, as amended, 42 Pa. C.S. 99543(a)(3). An issue is deemed previously
litigated if "the highest appellate court in which the petitioner could have had
review as a matter of right has ruled on the merits of the issue" or "it has been
raised and decided in a proceeding collaterally attacking the conviction or
sentence." Id, at 99544(a). An issue is deemed waived if "the petitioner could
have raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, . . . on appeal or in a prior
state postconviction proceeding." Id, at 99544(b).
"[R]epetitive applications for post conviction relief ignore 'the Waiver
provisions [of the Act] . . . and render the "finally litigated" concept illusory. ",
Place, The Post Conviction Relief Act 95.01, at 98 (rev. ed. 2004).
Finally, as a general proposition, Pennsylvania courts are not required to
entertain submissions which are incoherent, incomprehensible or unintelligible.
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Albert, 522 Pa. 331, 561 A.2d 736 (1989);
Commonwealth ex rei. Swann v. Shovlin, 423 Pa. 26,223 A.2d 1 (1966).
In the present case, Defendant's most recent petitions, motions and
applications seeking post conviction relief are, to a large degree, repetitious of
earlier requests for such relief. With the exception of the challenge to the
conditions of his confinement, as to which this court is not a proper forum, they
raise issues that are not intelligibly expressed or irrelevant in some instances, are
preempted by a prior petition, are untimely, and have been finally litigated or
waived.
F or these reasons, the following order will be entered:
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 9th day of December, 2004, upon consideration of the
several petitions, motions and applications filed by Defendant entitled "Motion for
Post Conviction Collateral Relief," "Motion To Dismiss Indictments Due to
Unconstitutional Statutes, All of Which Violate Due Process," "A Petition for
Writ of Habeus Corpus Challenging Both the Legality of My Detention Plus the
7
Conditions of My Confinement in the P.D.O.C.," "Application/Request for Leave
of Court (Due to 'Good Cause' and Exceptional Circumstances Plus
Absolute/Legal 'innocence') for (P.C.RA.) Post Conviction Relief Act Discovery
(and Pa RCrim.P. Rule 902(E)(1)(2)," "Motion for Extraordinary Relief To
Challenge the Constitutionality of the 'Sexually Violent Predator' Provisions of
Pennsylvania's 'Megan's Law' To Suppress Evidence, To Bar ex Post Facto
Prosecution, and To Bar a Second Prosecution for the Same Offense,"
"Application/Petition for Extraordinary Relief To Challenge the Constitutionality
of Corruption of Minors, Statutory Rape, IDSI Infant Crimes Enhancement
Mandatory Minimum, the '85% Law', and 'Megan's Law' and Insanity Defense
and Extended Statute of Limitation Laws All As Violative of Procedural Due
Process Again for All the Same Reasons Cited in Commonwealth v. Williams
(733 A.2d 593)," "Hitch Motion To Dismiss Both Indictments/Convictions Due to
Outrageous Government (D .A.lPolice/Prison Official/Judicial/Appellate
Court/Amici Curiae Defense Counsel Misconduct Evincing a Pattern of Both
'Similar Acts' and 'Bad-Acts' Evidence Which Exudes a Chronic/Deliberate
Disregard of the Accused's/Petitioner's Due Process Rights," "An Application for
Leave of Court To Waive and/or Modify Rules Concerning Pa RAP 124/2189 As
Well As PCRA Forms Witness D.O.B. Requirement," "Petition To Supplement
the Record (via PaRAP Rule 126)," "A Petition To Supplement the PCRA
Record," and "A Petition To Supplement the PCRA Record," notice is hereby
given pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907(1) of the court's
intention to dismiss the petitions, motions and applications, for the reasons stated
in the accompanying opinion.
BY THE COURT,
s/ 1. Wesley Oler, Jr.
1. Wesley Oler, Jr., 1.
Office of the District Attorney
8
Nicholas A. Pracht, DV -0813
SCI -Graterford
P.O. Box 246, Route 29
Collegeville, P A 19428-0246
Defendant, pro Se
9
10
COMMONWEALTH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
NICHOLAS A. PRACHT
CP-2l-CR-099l-l998
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR POST
CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF ET AL.
BEFORE OLER, J.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 9th day of December, 2004, upon consideration of the
several petitions, motions and applications filed by Defendant entitled "Motion for
Post Conviction Collateral Relief," "Motion To Dismiss Indictments Due to
Unconstitutional Statutes, All of Which Violate Due Process," "A Petition for
Writ of Habeus Corpus Challenging Both the Legality of My Detention Plus the
Conditions of My Confinement in the P.D.O.C.," "Application/Request for Leave
of Court (Due to 'Good Cause' and Exceptional Circumstances Plus
Absolute/Legal 'innocence') for (P.C.RA.) Post Conviction Relief Act Discovery
(and Pa RCrim.P. Rule 902(E)(1)(2)," "Motion for Extraordinary Relief To
Challenge the Constitutionality of the 'Sexually Violent Predator' Provisions of
Pennsylvania's 'Megan's Law' To Suppress Evidence, To Bar ex Post Facto
Prosecution, and To Bar a Second Prosecution for the Same Offense,"
"Application/Petition for Extraordinary Relief To Challenge the Constitutionality
of Corruption of Minors, Statutory Rape, IDSI Infant Crimes Enhancement
Mandatory Minimum, the '85% Law', and 'Megan's Law' and Insanity Defense
and Extended Statute of Limitation Laws All As Violative of Procedural Due
Process Again for All the Same Reasons Cited in Commonwealth v. Williams
(733 A.2d 593)," "Hitch Motion To Dismiss Both Indictments/Convictions Due to
Outrageous Government (D .A.lPolice/Prison Official/Judicial/Appellate
Court/Amici Curiae Defense Counsel Misconduct Evincing a Pattern of Both
'Similar Acts' and 'Bad-Acts' Evidence Which Exudes a Chronic/Deliberate
Disregard of the Accused's/Petitioner's Due Process Rights," "An Application for
Leave of Court To Waive and/or Modify Rules Concerning Pa RAP 124/2189 As
Well As PCRA Forms Witness D.O.B. Requirement," "Petition To Supplement
the Record (via PaRAP Rule 126)," "A Petition To Supplement the PCRA
Record," and "A Petition To Supplement the PCRA Record," notice is hereby
given pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907(1) of the court's
intention to dismiss the petitions, motions and applications, for the reasons stated
in the accompanying opinion.
BY THE COURT,
1. Wesley Oler, Jr., 1.
Office of the District Attorney
Nicholas A. Pracht, DV -0813
SCI -Graterford
P.O. Box 246, Route 29
Collegeville, P A 19428-0246
Defendant, pro Se