Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STEVEN DAVID VOGT, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT COLEMAN, Respondent.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 08 - 530 Chief Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan

ECF No. 40

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (ECF No. 40) filed on July 9, 2012. The motion is based on the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), which held that ineffectiveness of post-conviction counsel may serve to excuse the procedural default of claims alleging trial counsel ineffectiveness. Petitioner argues that

Martinez provides a proper ground for this Court to reopen his federal habeas proceeding. For the reasons explained herein, Petitioner's motion will be denied. I. BACKGROUND On January 31, 1991, Petitioner was found guilty by jury of Murder in the First Degree, Robbery, Theft, Kidnapping and Criminal Conspiracy. Following the denial of post-verdict motions, he was sentenced to life imprisonment on June 17, 1991. Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which affirmed the judgment of the lower court on October 21, 1991. Petitioner filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Supreme
1

Court of Pennsylvania, which was denied by that court on June 25, 1993. He did not seek discretionary review in the United States Supreme Court. Petitioner filed a pro se petition for relief under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa. Const. Stat.

Download 55007.pdf

Pennsylvania Law