HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0716-1994
COMMONWEAL TH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
CHRISTOPHER L. HAIGH
CP-21-CR-0716-1994
IN RE: PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
PROPOSED REASONS FOR DISMISSAL OF PETITION
Bayley, J.
On May 23, 1995, while represented by a public defender, petitioner was
convicted by a jury on counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse,1 and indecent
assault.2 These offenses occurred on April 9, 1994. On June 27, 1995, petitioner was
sentenced on the count of indecent assault to pay the costs of prosecution. On the
count of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, he was sentenced to undergo
imprisonment in a state correctional institution for a term of not less than six and a half
years or more than twenty years. Petitioner was given credit for 326 days already
served, and his sentence was made consecutive to any other sentence he was serving.
Petitioner filed a post-sentence motion, which was denied on August 16, 1995. His
trial counsel filed a direct appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which affirmed
118 Pa.C.S. S 3123.
218 Pa.C.S. S 3126.
CP-21-CR-0716-1994
the judgment of sentence on March 15, 1996.3 A petition for allowance of appeal to the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was denied on September 5, 1996.4
On October 16, 1998, petitioner filed a petition for relief under the Post-
Conviction Hearing Act, 42 PaC.S. Section 9541 et seq. Counsel was appointed, and
a hearing conducted. The petition was denied on March 16, 1999. The order was
affirmed by the Superior Court,5 and a petition for allowance of appeal was denied by
the Supreme Court.6 On September 26, 2000, petitioner filed a second petition for
post-conviction relief. Counsel was appointed, and a hearing was conducted. The
petition was denied on February 7, 2002. The order was affirmed by the Superior
Court of Pennsylvania on December 17, 2002.7 On June 26, 2003, the Supreme Court
of Pennsylvania denied a petition for allowance of appeal.s
On March 14, 2006, petitioner filed this third petition for post-conviction relief.
He maintains that his counsel was ineffective, alleging that he received a sentence
"greater than the lawful maximum," and the sentencing judge considered "improper
factors contained in pre-sentence report." These claims were litigated in the second
3451 Pa Super. 595 (1996).
4545 Pa 668 (1996).
5 662 MDA 1999.
61185 M.D. Alloc. Dkt. 1999.
7381 MDA 2002.
-2-
CP-21-CR-0716-1994
petition for post-conviction relief. Furthermore, in affirming the denial of relief in that
petition, the Superior Court noted that it was untimely filed.
PaR.Crim.P. 907(1), provides with respect to a petition for post-conviction relief:
the judge shall promptly review the petition, any answer by the
attorney for the Commonwealth, and other matters of record relating
to the defendant's claim(s). If the judge is satisfied from this review
that there are no genuine issues concerning any material fact and
that the defendant is not entitled to post-conviction collateral relief,
and no purpose would be served by any further proceedings, the
judge shall give notice to the parties of the intention to dismiss the
petition and shall state in the notice the reasons for the dismissal.
The defendant may respond to the proposed dismissal within 20 days of
the date of the notice. The judge thereafter shall order the petition
dismissed, grant leave to file an amended petition, or direct that the
proceedings continue. (Emphasis added.)
The within petition is frivolous. Accordingly, we intend to dismiss it without the
appointment of counselor a hearing. See Commonwealth v. Palmer, 814 A.2d 700
(Pa Super. 2002).
(Date)
Edgar B. Bayley, J.
David Freed, Esquire
District Attorney
Christopher L. Haigh, CV-6002, Pro se
SCI Mercer
801 Butler Pike
Mercer, PA 16137
s 123 MAL 2003.
-3-
CP-21-CR-0716-1994
:sal
-4-