SMITH v. THOMPSON

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA BLAKE SMITH, ) Petitioner, ) C.A. No, 24-85 Erie ) Vv. J District Judge Susan Paradise Baxter ) Chief Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo SUPERINTENDENT PATRICIA ) THOMPSON, et al., ) Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER This pro se action for habeas corpus relief was filed by Petitioner Blake Smith, an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Albion, Pennsylvania (“SCI-Albion’’), who is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In his habeas petition, Petitioner seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the imposition of his sentence on due process grounds. The petition was referred to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo, for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrate Judges. The record indicates that Petitioner entered a guilty plea to charges of rape, aggravated assault, robbery and burglary, stemming from his assault of a 75-year-old woman. He was sentenced on February 14, 2007 at docket number CP-02-CR-0004823-2006;'! however, after post-sentence motions, Petitioner was subsequently resentenced at the same docket number, on August 2, 2007, to 15 to 30 years of imprisonment, followed by a probation term of 15 years. Petitioner entered guilty pleas and was sentenced at the same time at two other docket numbers: CP-02-CR- 0010926-2005 and CP-02-CR-0017785-2005.

Following a direct appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on December 15, 2008. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 965 A.2d 302 (Pa. Super. 2008). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied a petition for allowance of appeal on April 22, 2009. On January 28, 2010, Petitioner filed a petition pursuant to the Pennsylvania Post- Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9541, et seq. (““PCRA”), asserting an error in the sentencing at docket number CP-02-CR-0010926-2005. As a result, that sentence was vacated and he was resentenced at that docket number on August 15, 2011; however, the sentences at the other two docket numbers remained unchanged. Petitioner filed an appeal from the new judgment of sentence in which he challenged the sentences at both docket numbers CP-02-CR-0010926-2005 and CP-02-CR-0004823-2006 (the sentence at issue in the pending petition). The Pennsylvania Superior Court entertained the appeal of both sentences and affirmed the judgments of sentence in both cases on April 17, 2013. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 75 A.3d 557 (Pa. Super 2013) (unpublished memorandum). A petition for allowance of appeal was denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on November 7, 2013. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 79 A.3d 1098 (Pa. 2013). Thus, Petitioner’s judgment of sentence at issue in this case became final on February 5, 2014, ninety days after the conclusion of his direct appeal, when the period for filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court expired. See Sup. Ct. R. 13; Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 149-50 (2012). Petitioner commenced this litigation on March 16, 2024, over ten years after his judgment of sentence became final and nine years beyond the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations for filing a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). As a result, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as untimely on January 9, 2025 [ECF No. 19].

Petitioner filed a response to Respondent’s motion acknowledging the untimeliness of his petition and failing to make any attempt to overcome it. (ECF No, 22, at 1). On May 28, 2025, Chief Magistrate Judge Lanzillo issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted, that the instant petition be dismissed, with prejudice, as untimely, and that a Certificate of Appealability be denied [ECF No. 25]. Objections to the R&R were due to be filed by July 16, 2025; however, no timely objections have been received by the Court. Thus, after de novo review of the petition and documents in the case, together with the report and recommendation, the following order is entered: AND NOW, this 21st day of July, 2025, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 19] is GRANTED, the within petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED as untimely, and a Certificate of Appealability is also DENIED. The report and recommendation of Chief Magistrate Judge Lanzillo, dated May 28, 2025 [ECF No. 25], is adopted as the opinion of this Court. As there are no further matters pending before the Court relative to the instant petition, the Clerk is directed to mark this case “CLOSED.”

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER United States District Judge

Ce: The Honorable Richard A. Lanzillo Chief United States Magistrate Judge All parties of record