Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0991-1998 (2) 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 BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, 1., May 24, 2006. This criminal case stems from Defendant's conviction on four counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and four counts of corruption of minors. 1 Defendant's judgment of sentence was affirmed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in 200l? For disposition at this time is Defendant's seventh request for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act. 3 Defendant's first request for post-conviction relief was filed during the pendency of his direct appeal and was dismissed for that reason.4 Defendant's second request for post-conviction relief, which raised a plethora of issues, was the subject of a hearing and was denied by this court.5 The denial was appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and the appeal was then withdrawn by Defendant.6 Defendant's third request for post-conviction relief, which was accompanied by a number of hand-written documents, was not the subject of a 1 Verdict and Order of Court, Oct. 28, 1998. 2 Order of Superior Court, 106 MDA 1999, May 8, 2001. 3 Defendant's Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, filed April 19, 2006. 4 Defendant's Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, filed Aug. 25, 1999; Order of Court, Dec. 13, 1999. 5 Defendant's Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, filed Mar. 25, 2002; Order of Court, Dec. 31,2003. 6 Notice of Appeal, filed Mar. 1,2004; Notice of Discontinuance, filed July 9,2004. hearing and was denied by this court.7 Defendant's fourth request for post- conviction relief was not the subject of a hearing and was denied by this court. 8 Within a one-month period, Defendant filed his fifth and sixth requests for post-conviction relief, neither of which was the subject of a hearing. 9 Both of these requests for post-conviction relief were denied by this court.lO At the present time, various issues relating to Defendant's prior filings are pending in the Pennsylvania Superior Court by virtue of an appeal by Defendant. 11 Defendant has now filed a seventh request for post conviction relief. For the reasons stated in this opinion, notice will be given of the court's intention to dismiss Defendant's latest request for post conviction relief, in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907(1). STATEMENT OF FACTS On October 28, 1998, Defendant was found guilty by a jury of four counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and four counts of corruption of minors,12 stemming from a sexual relationship he had with a young boy; 13 on December 8, 1998, he was sentenced by the Honorable George E. Hoffer to a term of imprisonment of six to fifteen years.14 Defendant then filed a direct appeal of 7 Defendant's Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief et al., filed Sept. 2, 2004; Order of Court, Dec. 9,2004; Order of Court, Jan. 10,2005. 8 Defendant's Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, filed Feb. 16, 2005; Order of Court, Mar. 30,2005; Order of Court, June 30, 2005. 9 Defendant's Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, filed June 6, 2005; Defendant's Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief, filed July 5, 2005. 10 Order of Court, July 11, 2005 (giving notice of intent to deny PCRA petition filed July 5, 2005); Order of Court, Aug. 8, 2005 (order denying PCRA petition filed July 5, 2005); Order of Court, Aug. 8, 2005 (giving notice of intent to deny PCRA petition filed June 6, 2005); Order of Court, Sept. 6,2006 (order denying PCRA petition filed June 6, 2005). 11 Commonwealth v. Pracht, No. 141 MDA 2006 (Pennsylvania Superior Court); see Opinion Pursuant to Pa. RA.P. 1925, dated Feb. 1,2006). 12 Verdict and Order of Court, Oct. 28, 1998. 13 See Commonwealth v. Nicholas Albert Pracht, May 4, 1998 Police Criminal Complaint; Order of Super. Ct., May 8, 2001,106 MDA 1999. 14 In re: Sentence Colloquy, Dec. 8, 1998. 2 his sentence to the Superior Court on January 7, 1999.15 The Superior Court affirmed Defendant's judgment of sentence on May 8, 2001.16 During the pendency of the direct appeal, Defendant filed his first request for post conviction relief,17 which was dismissed as premature.18 Defendant's second request for post conviction relief was filed on March 25,2002.19 A hearing was held on this petition on July 23, 2003,20 and the petition was denied on December 31, 2003?1 The denial of this petition was accompanied by a 43-page opinion which set forth a detailed history of the case.22 A copy of the opinion on Defendant's second request for post conviction relief is attached to this opinion as an appendix. Defendant's third request for post conviction relief was filed on September 2, 2004, and was accompanied by a number of other related petitions, motions, and applications. 23 On December 10, 2004, this court, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907(1), gave notice of its intent to deny Defendant's third petition,24 and on January 10, 2005, denied Defendant's petition?5 On January 14, 2005, this court denied Defendant's petition for reconsideration of his third post conviction relief petition. 26 No appeal was filed from this denial. 15 Defendant's Notice of Appeal, filed Jan. 7, 1999. 16 Order of Superior Court, 106 MDA 1999, May 8, 2001. 17 Defendant's Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, filed Aug. 25, 1999. 18 Order of Court, Dec. 13, 1999. 19 Defendant's Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, filed Mar. 25, 2002. 20 Order of Court, July 23,2003. 21 Order of Court, Dec. 31,2003. 22 Commonwealth v. Pracht, No. CP-21-CR-0991-1998 (Cumberland County, Dec. 31,2003). 23 Defendant's Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief et al., filed Sept. 2,2004. 24 Order of Court, Dec. 9,2004. 25 Order of Court, Jan. 10, 2005. 26 Order of Court, Jan. 14,2005. 3 Defendant's fourth request for post conviction relief was filed on February 16, 2005.27 On March 30, 2005, this court, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907(1), gave notice of its intent to deny Defendant's fourth petition,28 and on June 30, 2005, denied Defendant's fourth petition?9 Defendant's fifth request for post conviction relief was filed on June 6, 2005.30 On August 8, 2005, this court, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907(1), gave notice of its intent to deny Defendant's fifth petition,31 and on September 6, 2005, denied Defendant's petition.32 Defendant's sixth request for post conviction relief was filed on July 5, 2005.33 This court similarly gave notice of its intent to deny Defendant's sixth petition,34 and thereafter denied the petition.35 Defendant's seventh request for post conviction relief was filed on April 19, 2006.36 As with Defendant's prior filings, the contents of his seventh petition are of questionable import, duplicative of earlier filings, incomprehensible, or illegible. In addition, citing the recent United States Supreme Court case of Gonzalez v. 0 Centro Espirita Benificente Uniao do Vegetal, _ U.S. _, 126 S. Ct. 1211, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1017 (2006), as "after-discovered evidence," Defendant makes the following assertions, inter alia: "1st Amendment proscribes state/local entities 27 Defendant's Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, filed Feb. 16,2005. 28 Order of Court, Mar. 30, 2005. 29 Order of Court, June 30, 2005. 30 Defendant's Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, filed June 6, 2005. 31 Order of Court, August 8, 2005. 32 Order of Court, September 6,2005. 33 Defendant's Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, filed July 5, 2005. 34 Order of Court, July 11,2005. 35 Order of Court, August 8, 2006. In the confusion of Defendant's multiple filings of an almost identical nature, the court disposed of Defendant's sixth request for collateral relief prior to disposing of his fifth request. 36 Defendant's Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, filed April 19, 2006. 4 unduly restricting the free exercise and free establishment of religions including Rastafarian use of hemp"; "Star chamberlinquisition against 'Jews' wiceas, satanists, hemp users in Pagan Fertility rites (sex magic) of perverted sexual/violent practitioners/witch-doctors/shamans"; and "All ABA counsel/ADA' s/judges/ Appellate courts ignored wicean/ satanic/Rastafarian/pagan Fertility Rights. ,,37 evidence of DISCUSSION Several principles of law are pertinent to a disposition of Defendant's latest request for post conviction relief. Each of these principles tends to militate against a favorable disposition of Defendant's claims sub judice. First, under Section 9578(a) of the Judicial Code: No 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, 9 2, 42 Pa. c.s. 9 9578(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 9 9578(b). 37 Id. 5 Second, under Section 9543 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, P.L. 417, 9 2, as amended, 42 Pa. c.s. 9 9543(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 9 9544(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 9 9544(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 9 5.01, at 98 (rev. ed. 2004). Third, 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). Finally, in Gonzalez v. 0 Centro Espirita Benejicente Uniao do Vegital, _ U.S. _, 126 S. Ct. 1211, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1017 (2006), the United States Supreme Court, applying a federal law inapplicable to the states, upheld a preliminary injunction enjoining federal authorities from prosecuting the use of hoasca, a tea containing a hallucinogen, in religious ceremonies. The case has no applicability to Defendant's situation. Cf Employment Div., Dept. of Human Res. of Or., 494 U.S. 872, 110 S. Ct. 1595, 108 L. Ed. 2d 876 (1940) (holding that neutral and generally applicable state laws are constitutional even if the law has an incidental effect of burdening religion). In the present case, Defendant's most recent petition for post conviction relief raises issues that are variously unintelligible, uncognizable due to having 6 been finally litigated or waived, or clearly lacking in merit. For this reason, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 24th day of May, 2006, upon consideration of Defendant's [Seventh] Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, notice is hereby given pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907(1) of the court's intention to dismiss Defendant's motion for the reasons stated in the accompanymg opmIOn. BY THE COURT, s/ 1. Wesley Oler, Jr. 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 Defendant, pro Se [Certified and Regular Mail] 7 8 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 BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 24th day of May, 2006, upon consideration of Defendant's [Seventh] Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, notice is hereby given pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907(1) of the court's intention to dismiss Defendant's motion for the reasons stated in the accompanymg opmIOn. 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 Defendant, pro Se [Certified and Regular Mail]