# Talbert v. Pennsylvania Attorney General

> District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · July 27, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10401485

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 27, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10401485

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
________________________________
:
Charles Talbert, :
Petitioner :
: Civil Action No. 20-6330-CFK
v. :
:
Pennsylvania Attorney General, :
Respondent :
____________________________________:
MEMORANDUM
Kenney, J. July 27, 2021
Charles Talbert (“Petitioner”), representing himself, has filed a motion for a temporary
restraining order and injunction under Rule 65 (ECF No. 14), along with a habeas corpus petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF Nos. 8 and 15), challenging his current incarceration pending
trial for three separate criminal cases of robbery, terroristic threats, and recklessly endangering
another person. Upon referral from this Court, Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski issued a
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) finding that Petitioner’s claims for habeas relief and his
Rule 65 Motion are without merit and recommending that his petition and motion be denied and
dismissed. ECF No. 18. Petitioner has timely filed Objections to the R&R. ECF No. 19.
After a review of Petitioner’s habeas petition, his Rule 65 Motion, the R&R, and the
Objections thereto, and for the reasons set forth below, this Court overrules the Objections,
approves and adopts the R&R in its entirety, and denies and dismisses the habeas petition and the
Rule 65 Motion.
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
A. Petitioner’s Charges and Procedural History
This petition for habeas corpus arises out of three separate criminal cases filed against
Petitioner.1 In the Petitioner’s first case (“Case Number 1”), Petitioner was charged with
robbery, terroristic threats, and recklessly endangering another person. Crim. Docket 1 at 3. In
the Petitioner’s second case (“Case Number 2”), he was charged with robbery, theft by unlawful

taking, receiving stolen property, possession of an instrument of crime, and terroristic threats.
Crim. Docket 2 at 3. In the Petitioner’s third case (“Case Number 3”), he was charged with
robbery, attempted theft by unlawful taking, attempted receipt of stolen property, possession of
an instrument of crime, and terroristic threats. Crim. Docket 3 at 3. Petitioner has been in
detention on charges related to these cases since his arrest on January 8, 2019. Crim. Docket 1 at
1; Crim. Docket 2 at 1; Crim. Docket 3 at 1.
The trial court granted several continuances at the request of both defense counsel and the
Commonwealth.2 In March 2020, under the direction of Governor Wolf, Pennsylvania Rule of
Criminal Procedure Rule 600—the “Speedy Trial Statute”—was suspended due to the Covid-19
public health emergency. ECF No. 19 at 5. On February 16, 2021, the trial court continued the

case due to the closure of the courthouse to jury trials during the Covid-19 pandemic. Crim.

1 The Court’s recitation of the procedural history relies upon information provided by the affidavit of probable
cause (attached to this memorandum as Attachment A), information provided by Petitioner, and the criminal docket
sheets for Petitioner’s underlying criminal cases (see R&R at n.1).
2 In Case Number 1, defense counsel requested a continuance due to Petitioner’s unavailability in June 2019. Crim.
Docket 1 at 4. In Case Number 2, defense counsel requested a continuance for further investigation on May 1, 2019.
Crim. Docket 2 at 5. Defense counsel then requested two more continuances for further investigation. Id. In Case
Number 3, the trial court granted continuances on September 19, 2019 and October 30, 2019. Crim. Docket 3 at 5.
The Commonwealth filed a motion for consolidation in all three cases on November 25, 2019, which the court
granted on December 13, 2019. Crim Docket 1 at 5; Crim. Docket 3 at 6. Counsel then filed a joint request for
continuance in January of 2020. Id. at 5. On July 10, 2020, the Commonwealth requested a continuance for its
expert witness. Crim Docket 1 at 6; Crim Docket 2 at 6; Crim Docket 3 at 7. Defense counsel then requested a
continuance for further investigation on September 10, 2020. Crim Docket 1 at 6; Crim Docket 2 at 7; Crim. Docket
3 at 7.
Docket 1 at 7; Crim. Docket 2 at 8; Crim. Docket 3 at 8. Petitioner’s trial is currently scheduled
for September 13, 2021. Crim. Docket 1, 2, & 3 at 2.
State court records show that on November 29, 2018, an offender—later identified as
Petitioner—walked into a PNC Bank and handed the teller a demand note that stated, “FILL ME

UP A BAG OF MONEY OR I WILL SHOOT.” The teller did not comply and walked behind
the teller line and entered the emergency code to alert the police. The offender then walked out
of the bank empty handed in an unknown direction. Members of the FBI Task Force responded
to the bank robbery within fifteen minutes and processed the scene. The demand note was
photographed and recovered, the teller and another witness were interviewed, and video
surveillance, including still images, were recovered. The teller was able to describe the offender
in detail.
Two days later, on December 1, 2018, an offender entered a TD Bank and handed the
teller a demand note that stated, “GIVE ME TEN THOUSAND IN 10 SECONDS OR YOU
WILL DIE.” The teller complied and gave the offender approximately $3,000.00. The offender

took the money and fled the bank in an unknown direction. About an hour later a detective
responded to the bank robbery and processed the scene. The demand note was photographed and
recovered, the teller was interviewed, and the still images were recovered. The offender was
described in detail by a witness.
On December 2, 2018, still images taken from video surveillance from the bank robbery
were uploaded to the Philadelphia Police Department’s home page and were submitted to the
local media outlets to solicit tips from the public.
On December 4, 2018, a police officer from Galloway Police Department in New Jersey
was dispatched on a report of a male who wanted to turn himself in for a bank robbery. Upon
arrival, the officer made contact with Petitioner, who stated that he robbed the TD Bank in
Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia. The Petitioner was detained and transported to Galloway Township
Police Department for investigation, where the officer was able to verify that there was a bank
robbery at the TD Bank in Chestnut Hill. The officer was also able to locate a bulletin issued by

the Philadelphia Police FBI Violent Crimes Task Force, which further verified a robbery at the
TD Bank. The officer observed that the still image in the bulletin had distinct similarities with
the Petitioner, which further corroborated his admission. The Petitioner had $760.00 in his
possession. The Petitioner was not arrested at the time and was transported to Atlanticare
Mainland Division Hospital, as he reported having ingested cocaine before calling the police.
Investigators then compared the driver’s license photograph of Petitioner with images
from the surveillance videos from the bank robberies and concluded that the offender was
Petitioner. When detectives showed the tellers from the PNC and TD Bank robberies photo
arrays that included Petitioner, neither was able to make a positive identification.
Then, on December 22, 2018, an offender approached the cash register at a Kentucky

Fried Chicken in Philadelphia and threw a demand note over the front counter. When the cashier
asked, “What’s this?” the offender replied, “If you don’t give me the money, I’ll kill you!” The
cashier stated that the offender had his jacket pulled up to his face covering his mouth, and she
had difficulty understanding him. She asked the offender three times what he said, and on the
third time he stated, “If you don’t open the register, I’m gonna kill you!” The cashier then ran to
the back of the restaurant and informed the restaurant manager. The cashier and manager then
ran to the front of the store and observed the offender fleeing. The manager then got into his
vehicle, followed the offender and used his cell phone to record him talking to an older man
outside of a dark blue car. The manager then left the location and flagged down Patrol Officers
in the area and informed them of the robbery. The North West Detectives Division responded to
the location, photographed the scene, and interviewed the cashier and manager. At the scene, the
Patrol Officers recovered a piece of a brown paper bag that read, “Give me 5k or I’m gonna kill
you,” from the front counter of the restaurant. The manager provided the officers with the video

from his cell phone of the offender.
On December 27, 2018, the same two officers were on patrol in the same area when they
observed a blue car with the same license plate from the manager’s video. The officers stopped
the vehicle and recognized the operator of the vehicle as the man speaking to the offender in the
video. The man provided the officers with his recollection of his encounter with the offender on
December 22, 2018. He informed the officers that he knew the offender from living in the same
neighborhood as him, and that the offender asked him for a ride. When the man observed the
manager recording them with his cell phone, he declined to give “Charlie” a ride and went inside
his residence.
With this information, the Patrol Officers searched a prior offender database using the

offender’s physical description from the video. The assigned detective also submitted a facial
recognition request to the Pennsylvania Criminal Intelligence Center using a screenshot obtained
from the video. The results implicated Petitioner as a possible suspect. When the detective
showed a photo array containing a photograph of Petitioner to the cashier and manager, the
cashier was unable to make a positive identification, but the manager positively identified the
Petitioner as the offender that committed the robbery on December 22, 2019 at the KFC.
Petitioner was later arrested on January 8, 2019 and charged in connection with the
robberies of the PNC Bank, the TD Bank, and the KFC.
B. The Instant Habeas Corpus and Rule 65 Motion
On September 3, 2020, Petitioner filed his pro se habeas corpus petition with the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which was transferred to the
Eastern District. ECF Nos. 1 and 9. On October 19, 2020, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition,
with an accompanying brief filed on March 15, 2021. ECF Nos. 8 and 15.

Petitioner argues that his current incarceration pending trial is unlawful and in violation
of his First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. ECF No. 15 at 3.
Petitioner explains that he has not been brought to trial in two years in violation of Pa. R. Crim.
Pro. 600. Id. at 11. Additionally, Petitioner contends that his health conditions, including high
blood pressure, asthma, and heart complications, put him at an increased risk of suffering serious
complications from Covid-19, and that prison conditions have become inhumane due to the
pandemic. Id. at 12. Finally, Petitioner argues that his mental and physical health have
deteriorated substantially enough that he requires additional medical care. Id. at 13. Petitioner
seeks four forms of relief: (1) grant Petitioner immediate supervised release; (2) order the open
criminal cases against him to be dismissed as “constitutionally time-barred;” (3) order a state

doctor to immediately treat him for his anxiety with adequate medication and therapy; and (4)
afford Petitioner an opportunity for oral argument on his claims. Id. at 8.
In addition to his habeas corpus petition, Petitioner filed a Rule 65 Motion on February
16, 2021. ECF No. 14. His Motion requests that this Court issue a preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order: (1) requiring the Respondent to bring Petitioner to the hospital to be
diagnosed and treated for his Covid-related health conditions; (2) restraining the Department of
Corrections from keeping Petitioner in custody; and (3) releasing Petitioner from prison
conditioned on special supervision. Id. at 6.
C. Magistrate Judge Sitarski’s Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Sitarski’s issued her R&R on March 31, 2021 and recommended
dismissing both Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus and his Rule 65 motion. ECF No. 19.
The R&R explained the highly deferential posture a federal court must take before
intervening into a state court’s criminal proceeding, as Petitioner has filed this petition for habeas

relief before being convicted on the charged offenses. As such, Petitioner bears the burden of
proving exhaustion of all available state remedies. However, Petitioner in fact still has state
remedies available to him. Additionally, the R&R concluded that Petitioner has not presented
the Court any “special circumstances” that would demand habeas review prior to the completion
of his state court trial. Judge Sitarski ultimately concluded that federal court intervention is
premature at this time.
Turning to the Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order and injunction under
Rule 65, the R&R concluded that Petitioner has not shown circumstances warranting injunctive
relief. Without exhausting his state court remedies, the Petitioner’s Rule 65 motion cannot
establish a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of his underlying habeas claim. Nor

has Petitioner met the heavy burden of demonstrating that he will suffer irreparable harm if he is
not released. Judge Sitarski noted that the mere existence of Covid-19 in society cannot
independently justify release and that Petitioner’s claim that he suffers from shortened breath due
to complications from Covid-19—without providing medical records to support this—is not a
sufficiently compelling reason for his release.
D. Petitioner’s Objections
Petitioner, representing himself, has filed Objections to the R&R. ECF No. 19.
Petitioner objects to the R&R on the grounds that (1) his sole federal remedy lies in habeas
corpus; (2) Covid-19 risks are extraordinary circumstances that warrant his release from custody;
(3) Petitioner cannot exhaust if he is represented by counsel; and (4) in his situation, exhaustion
is not required.
Petitioner first takes issue with the R&R explaining that Petitioner had filed an appeal to
regarding his wrongful conviction and sentence, as that appeal was quashed sua sponte due to the

Petitioner having a post-sentence motion pending, which counsel for Petitioner never
communicated to him. This caused Petitioner to seek the help of the State Supreme Court to
order counsel to confer or withdraw. The State Supreme Court sent counsel several notices to
comply with his duties as an attorney, which allegedly were ignored until Petitioner was forced
to file a lawsuit against him. As a result of counsel’s conduct, Petitioner’s time to file a Post
Conviction Relief Act petition had elapsed causing prejudice to his constitutional right to
effective assistance of counsel. As such, Petitioner claims that he is not required to exhaust his
state claims since the corrective process has been so clearly deficient as to render any effort to
obtain relief futile (citing Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 561 (1981)).
Next, the Petitioner objects to the conditions of his confinement and argues that the

conditions of his incarceration violate the Eighth and Fourteenth amendments. Petitioner argues
that the Department of Corrections was grossly negligent in allowing Covid-19 to spread through
the prison and infect thousands of inmates. In addition to the poor conditions, Petitioner claims
he is being deprived of mental health treatment and has been punished and confined to solitary
confinement for actions directly attributable to his serious mental health illness. Petitioner
claims to have been diagnosed with anxiety, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, bipolar disorder,
major depression, and anti-social personality disorder. Petitioner believes the DOC staff
intentionally trigger his symptoms, which causes him to immediately react and DOC staff then
file misconduct reports and keep him confined in “disciplinary custody.” Petitioner further
argues that his solitary confinement is ruining his physical and mental health and the conditions
of his confinement amount to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and
Fourteenth amendments.
Petitioner also claims he has been denied the constitutional guarantee to a speedy trial.

Under the Pennsylvania speedy trial statute, the Commonwealth was legally obligated to bring
Petitioner to trial no later than February 1, 2020. See Pa. R. Crim. P. No. 600(a). Petitioner filed
a Motion to Dismiss based on the speedy trial violation on October 15, 2020. The Judge in the
Court of Common Pleas has not yet ruled on the motion. The State Supreme Court in March
2020, a month after the Petitioner’s 365 days had elapsed, suspended the speedy trail statute.
Petitioner claims this limited his right to seek any remedy for being excessively incarcerated
pretrial in violation of the Constitution, causing another absence of effective process to seek
relief. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973). Moreover,
per Petitioner, Art. 1, Sec. 12 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution clearly states that only
legislators may suspend laws, not the State Supreme Court. As such, the court’s action

suspending the speedy trail statute violated the separation of powers.
Lastly, Petitioner states that, during this delay, one of Petitioner’s main alibi witnesses
has died from Covid-19, significantly prejudicing the defense.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“The writ of habeas corpus stands as a safeguard against imprisonment of those held in
violation of the law.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 91 (2011). The instant petition was
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because Petitioner is a pre-trial detainee in state custody. Paladino
v. King, 247 F. App’x 393, 394 (3d Cir. 2007). Section 2241 confers jurisdiction on district
courts to issue writs of habeas corpus in response to a petition from someone who “is in custody
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a)
and (c)(3).
A district court may summarily dismiss a habeas petitioner when it plainly appears that
the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court pursuant to Rule 4 (“Preliminary

Consideration by the Judge”) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (1977) (applicable to § 2241 petitions under Rule 1(b)).
See, e.g., Pacitti v. Lindsay, No. 3:CV-06-0783, 2006 WL 1274997, at *1 (M.D. Pa. May 8,
2006). A judge must order the respondent to file an answer only “[i]f the petition is not
dismissed.” See Rules governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4.
When a petitioner timely files objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the district court will make a de novo review
of those portions of the report to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
Weidman v. Calvin, 164 F. Supp. 3d 650, 653 (M.D. Pa. 2015); Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099,
1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989). However, a district court is not required to make any separate findings

or conclusions. Hill v. Barnacle, 655 F. App’x 142, 147 (3d Cir. 2016). “Although the standard
is de novo, the extent of review is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge, and the
court may rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper.”
Weidman, 164 F. Supp. 3d at 653 (citing Reider v. Apfel, 155 F. Supp. 2d 496, 499 (M.D. Pa.
2000)). When objections are general rather than specific, de novo review is not required. See
Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). Uncontested portions of a R&R, as well as
portions which general objections are made, may be reviewed under a standard determined by
the district court; however, at a minimum, these portions should be reviewed for “clear error or
manifest injustice.” Colon-Montanez v. Delbalso, No. 3:15-CV-02442, 2016 WL 3654504, at *1
(M.D. Pa. July 8, 2016); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Lng Branch, 866
F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (“A district court should ‘afford some level of review to dispositive
legal issued raised by the report.’) (internal citation and quotation omitted). After such review, a
district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and

recommendation” contained in a report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Additionally, Rule 4 provides that a federal habeas court may take judicial notice of state
court records, dockets, and/or state court opinions, as well as its own court records. See
Richardson v. Thompson, No. 13-1466, 2014 WL 65995, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2014).
III. ANALYSIS
Magistrate Judge Sitarski’s R&R, issued on March 31, 2021, concludes that Petitioner is
not entitled to habeas relief on any of his claimed grounds. See generally ECF No. 18.
Magistrate Judge Sitarski finds that a substantive review of Petitioner’s claim is inappropriate at
this time as Petitioner has yet to stand trial, or even complete one round of state court review.
Petitioner has failed to present any “special circumstances” that would justify habeas review

prior to the completion of his state court trial; nor does Petitioner meet the heavy burden
warranting the grant of injunctive relief in his Rule 65 motion.
Petitioner timely filed Objections to Magistrate Judge Sitarski’s R&R on April 4, 2021.
See generally ECF No. 19. In his Objections, Petitioner states four ground of relief. First,
Petitioner claims that the “sole” federal remedy for a detainee seeking immediate release from
custody is habeas corpus. Second, Petitioner argues that Covid-19 risks are “extraordinary
circumstances” that warrant release from custody. Third, citing Pa. R.A.P. 3304, Petitioner
claims that he cannot exhaust state court remedies if he is represented by counsel. Lastly,
Petitioner argues that, in these situations, exhaustion is not required, citing Coleman v.
Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991); Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986).
A. The Habeas Corpus Petition
The Court reviews de novo the specific portions of the R&R to which Petitioner objects

and “may accept, reject, or modify” Magistrate Judge Sitarski’s conclusions “in whole or in
part.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); see also Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Although Section 2241 provides federal courts with “pre-trial” habeas corpus
jurisdiction, it “must be exercised sparingly in order to prevent . . . ‘pre-trial habeas interference
by federal courts in the normal functioning of state criminal processes.’” Duran v. Thomas, 393
F.App’x 3,4 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437, 445-46 (3d Cir. 1875)).
Federal courts should uphold the principle of comity, or “deference and ‘proper respect’ for state
governmental functions,” which requires the court to exercise restraint in interfering with
ongoing state criminal proceedings. Evans v. Court of Common Pleas Del. Cnty., Pa., 959 F.2d
1227, 1234 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971)). Absent

“exceptional circumstances in criminal cases, the regular judicial procedure should be followed,
and habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of a trial.” Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390,
391 (1918). Section 2241 is not usually a “proper vehicle” to challenge detention pending trial.
Reese v. Warden Phila. FDC, 904 F.3d 244, 247 (3d Cir. 2018). When a petitioner seeks to
“challenge the charges against him” he should “do so through pretrial motions in his criminal
case, not via a pretrial § 2241 petition.” Id.
i. Petitioner Has Not Satisfied The Exhaustion Requirement
The Supreme Court has ruled “[a] petitioner cannot bring federal habeas claims without
first exhausting state remedies—a process that frequently takes longer than one year.” Holland
v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 648 (2010); see also Woods/Hall, 2007 WL 4190693, at *2 n.4
(“exhaustion in state court of pre-trail claims in a § 2241 habeas petition is judicially
mandated”). The exhaustion rule is a matter of comity and “should be strictly adhered to
because it expresses respect for our dual judicial system.” Caswell v. Ryan, 953 F.2d 853, 857

(3d Cir. 1992).
The Petitioner bears the burden of proving all facts entitling him to discharge from
custody, including procedural requisites entitling him to relief. Brown v. Cuyler, 669 F.2d 155,
158 (3d Cir. 1982). Thus, the Petitioner has the burden of proving the exhaustion of all available
state remedies. Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 513 (3d Cir. 1997). To satisfy the
exhaustion requirement, “state prisoners must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve
any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s established appellate
review process.” O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 844-45 (1999). The exhaustion
requirement does not foreclose federal relief, but merely postpones it. Toulson v. Beyer, 987
F.2d 984, 986 (3d Cir. 1993).

Magistrate Judge Sitarski found that addressing the Petition on the merits at this time is
inappropriate because the Petitioner has not satisfied the exhaustion requirement. Petitioner has
a pending motion to dismiss in state court, which was filed on October 15, 2020 and has not yet
been ruled on. Crim. Docket 2 at 7; Crim. Docket 3 at 7. Furthermore, he did not appeal the trial
court’s decision to revoke his bail to the Superior Court. Crim. Docket 2 at 5. The Petitioner has
not invoked one complete round of the State’s established appellate review process with respect
to his pre-trial detention. Additionally, Petitioner has yet to present the state court with any of
the claims he purports to raise here. Adequate state court review remains available to Petitioner
“at trial and thereafter, on appellate review.” Moore, 515 F.2d at 445; see also Woods/Hall,
2007 WL 4190693, at *3. Therefore, “because the normal appellate process available post-trial
is sufficient to protect his federal rights, [Petitioner] cannot establish that a return to state court
would be futile because of an absence of available state corrective process.” Woods/Hall, 2007
WL 4190693, at *3. The R&R adds that Petitioner’s trial, scheduled for September 13, 2021,

may provide some of the relief he seeks here.
In opposition, Petitioner argues that he is not subject to the exhaustion requirement
because he is represented by constitutionally deficient counsel and that in his situation
exhaustion is not required. Petitioner cites Pa. R.A.P. 3304, which prohibited review of a
defendant’s pro se brief if he is represented by counsel. However, Pa. R.A.P. 3304 has been
rescinded and is inapplicable anyway because it only applied to post-conviction filings. While it
is true that there is no right to hybrid representation in Pennsylvania, this is not an exception to
the exhaustion requirement. See, e.g., Young v. Superintendent Diguglielmo, No. CV 15-1830,
2016 WL 3511543, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 8, 2016) (finding that habeas petitioner had not
exhausted his state court remedies because he had not properly presented to the state court his

federal constitutional claims where petitioner was represented and filed his action pro se).
Petitioner’s reliance on Coleman on this point is also misguided. Coleman v. Thompson,
501 U.S. 722 (1991). In Coleman, the Supreme Court held that “[a] habeas petitioner who has
defaulted on his federal claims in state court meets the technical requirements for exhaustion;
there are no state remedies any longer ‘available’ to him.” Coleman, 501 U.S. at 732. Coleman
is inapposite here because there is no evidence in the record that the Petitioner has defaulted on
his federal claims in state court and that no state court remedies are available to him. For
example, the Petitioner has not shown that he can no longer appeal the trial court’s revocation of
his bail or that he cannot file a motion to vacate or reduce the bail judgment. Magistrate Judge
Sitarski specifically cited this deficiency in finding that Petitioner has not exhausted his state
court remedies and the Petitioner provided no response in his Objections that undermines her
conclusions.
Petitioner also argues that he should not be subject to the exhaustion requirement because

he has attempted to avail himself of state court remedies but has been unsuccessful, showing that
the state’s “corrective process is so clearly deficient as to render futile any effort to obtain
relief.” ECF No. 19 at 6-7 (citing Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 561 (1981)). Petitioner’s
appeal of his prior conviction and sentence was quashed sua sponte because he had a pending
post-sentencing motion that his counsel had not informed him of. Id. at 7. Petitioner also
solicited the State Supreme Court to send his counsel notices to comply with his duties that were
allegedly ignored. Due to his counsel’s delay, Petitioner is now time-barred from filing a Post-
Conviction Relief Act petition in violation of his constitutional right to effective assistance of
counsel. Petitioner states that as a result of his counsel’s ineffectiveness in violation of his Sixth
and Fourteenth Amendments, and the State Supreme Court’s failure to “timely” enforce its

authority, Petitioner has no corrective process in state court to obtain relief. Id.
The exhaustion requirement is excused and considered futile where no available state
corrective process exists, or the particular circumstances of the case render the state process
ineffective to protect the petitioner’s rights. 28 U.S.C. §§2254(b)(1)(B)(i) and (ii); Lambert, 134
F.3d at 513. The habeas petitioner bears the burden of proving futility as to the state remedies.
Toulson, 987 F.2d at 987. Petitioner has not proved futility of available state remedies here
because he has not shown that there is no corrective process available to him or that the available
process is ineffective. Petitioner did not appeal the trial court’s decision to revoke his bail to the
Superior Court, nor has he filed any subsequent motion on his pre-trial detention. Crim. Docket
2 at 5. As detailed above, he has not invoked one complete round of the State’s established
appellate review process, nor has he presented the state courts with any of the claims he purports
to raise here. In his Objections, Petitioner did not adequately explained his failure to pursue
these remedies, which was identified in the R&R. As such, the Court finds that state court

remedies remain available to Petitioner before trial, at trial and thereafter, on appellate review.
Moore, 515 F.2d at 445; see also Woods/Halls, 2007 WL 4190693, at *3.
ii. Petitioner Has Not Shown Extraordinary Circumstances
Magistrate Judge Sitarski finds that Petitioner’s claim for relief at this time is
inappropriate as a “federal habeas corpus does not lie, absent ‘special circumstances’ to
adjudicate the merits of an affirmative defense to a state criminal charge prior to a judgment of
conviction by a state court.” Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489
(1973); see also Woods/Hall v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. 07-3487, 2007 WL
4190693, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2007). Barring “extraordinary circumstances,” the Court
should “exercise its ‘pretrial’ habeas jurisdiction only if petitioner makes a special showing of

the need for such adjudication and has exhausted state remedies.” Moore, 515 F.2d at 443.
“Only where there has been a ‘showing of bad faith, harassment, or any other unusual
circumstance that would call for equitable relief’ is it appropriate for a federal court to enjoin or
otherwise interfere in state criminal proceedings.” Briston v. Wholey, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
76254 (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 54).
The Third Circuit has ruled that grievances with the right to a speedy trial are not “a per
se ‘extraordinary circumstance.’” Moore, 515 F.2d at 446. In fact, the Court could not find any
authority which “singles out the constitutional issue of speedy trial as an extraordinary
circumstance sufficient to dispend with the exhaustion requirement.” Id. Furthermore, the
Third Circuit has held that “cases in which the speedy trial claim has been raised in pre-trial
habeas context have granted the writ only after exhaustion on the merits in the state courts.” Id.
Magistrate Judge Sitarski concluded that Petitioner has not offered any extraordinary
circumstances that warrant pretrial, pre-exhaustion habeas corpus relief during the pendency of

his ongoing state court proceedings. See Lambert, 134 F.3d at 157. To justify pre-exhaustion
habeas relief, Petitioner must present allegations reveling “the quality of delay, harassment, bad
faith or other intentional activity which, in an appropriate situation, might constitute an
‘extraordinary circumstance.’” Id. Although Petitioner asserts that he has been unjustly
imprisoned for over two years, he has been formally arraigned, bills of information have been
filed, and pre-trial conferences have been held. Crim. Docket 1 at 2; Crim. Docket 2 at 2; Crim.
Docket 3 at 2. Additionally, his trial is scheduled to start in three months. Cf. Dickerson, 816
F.2d at 228-29 (five-year delay in bringing petitioner to trial did not present the requisite special
circumstances for pre-trial habeas review); see also Moore, 515 F.2d at 446 (“We perceive
nothing in the nature of the speedy trial right to qualify it as a per se ‘extraordinary

circumstance.’”).
Further, the R&R accurately notes that any delay in Petitioner’s trial was not caused by
harassment, bad faith, or other intentional activities. See Lambert, 134 F.3d at 517. After
Petitioner’s cases were consolidated, his counsel filed a request for a continuance to conduct
further investigation. Crim. Docket 1 at 6; Crim. Docket 2 at 7; Crim. Docket 3 at 7. Moreover,
the most recent continuance in this case was ordered by the court due to the closure of the
courthouse during the Covid-19 pandemic. Crim. Docket 1 at 7; Crim. Docket 2 at 8; Crim.
Docket 3 at 8. This most recent delay was necessary to protect public health and in compliance
with CDC guidelines. Therefore, Magistrate Judge Sitarski correctly concluded that these delays
do not show bad faith or harassment, and therefore do not qualify as “extraordinary
circumstances” necessitating release. See Lambert, 134 F.3d at 517.
Accordingly, federal court intervention is premature and unwarranted. The Pennsylvania
courts are the proper forum for addressing the issues raised in this petition.

B. The Rule 65 Motion
Petitioner here “bear[s] the burden on demonstrating the various factors justifying
preliminary injunctive relief.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamster and Auto
Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda County, 415, U.S. 423, 441 (1974). For a requesting
party to obtain a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, it must show: (1) a
reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury if the requested relief is not
granted; (3) the granting of preliminary injunction will not result in greater harm to the non-
moving party; and (4) the public interest weighs in favor of granting the injunction. Fulton v.
City of Philadelphia, 922 F.3d 140, 152 (3d Cir. 2019) (citing Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858
F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir. 2017)). If factors (1) and (2) are satisfied, “a court then considers the

remaining two factors and determines in its sound discretion if all four factors, taken together,
balance in favor of granting the requested relief.” Reilly, 858 F.3d at 179. However, if the
Petitioner fails to establish both (1) a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits and (2)
irreparable injury if the requested relief is not granted, a preliminary injunction is inappropriate.
Id. Where Petitioner seeks a mandatory preliminary injunction that will alter the status quo, he
“bears a particularly heavy burden in demonstrating its necessity.” See Acierno v. New Castle
Cnty., 40 F.3d 645, 653 (3d Cir. 1994).
Here, Petitioner requests this Court release him from prison due to his high blood
pressure, asthma, and unspecified heart complications, which place him at higher risk of
complications from Covid-19. ECF No. 19 at 5. Additionally, the Petitioner alleges that as a
result of gross negligence and reckless indifference for inmates’ lives, the Department of
Corrections has caused their prison staff to spread Covid-19 to each facility, infecting and killing
thousands of inmates. And, as a consequence of the Department of Corrections’ negligence, the

Petitioner alleges that he became “positive” for Covid-19 while having underlying health
conditions.
The Third Circuit has held that a challenge to the conditions of confinement is cognizable
on habeas review “in extreme cases,” and has further found that the circumstances of the Covid-
19 pandemic establish such an extreme case. Ali v. Gibson, 572 F.2d 971, 975 n. 8 (3d Cir.
1978); Hope v. Warden York County Prison, 972 F.3d 310, 324-25 (3d Cir. 2020). However, the
Third Circuit has also stated that “the mere existence of Covid-19 in society and the possibility
that it may spread to a particular prison alone cannot independently justify compassionate
release.” U.S. v. Raia, F.3d 954, 597 (3d Cir. 2020). Although Petitioner’s medical conditions
of high blood pressure, asthma, and unspecified heart complications put him at an increased risk

of severe illness, this risk alone is not a sufficiently compelling justification for his release,
particularly where the Petitioner has not provided any medical records. The Petitioner also
alleges (again without providing any documentation to the Court) that he suffers from shortened
breath due to complications from Covid-19, resulting in breathing complications, severe chest
pain, lack of smell and taste, nausea, and headaches. ECF No. 19 at 5. The Petitioner also did
not provide support for his accusations of negligence against the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections. As the R&R recognized, the Pennsylvania DOC has implemented a number of
Covid-19 safety measures in accordance with CDC recommendations, and is taking measures to
mitigate the risks to inmates. See COVID-19 and the DOC,
http://www.cor.pa.gov/Pages/COVID-19.aspx (last visited Jun. 3, 2021). Based on the
aforementioned factors, Petitioner has not made a compelling argument that he is entitled to
relief. See Saillant v. Hoover, 454 F. Supp. 3d 465, 471-72 (M.D. Pa. 2020) (finding petitioner
not entitled to habeas relief where petitioner did not show Covid diagnosis, symptoms, or direct

exposure, and where prison implemented proper safety measures).
Magistrate Judge Sitarski correctly concludes that Petitioner fails to meet the heavy
burden warranting the grant of injunctive relief. As discussed above, because Petitioner has not
exhausted his claims in the state court or shown extraordinary circumstances, he cannot establish
a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of his underlying habeas claim. Nor has
Petitioner satisfied the heavy burden of demonstrating that he will suffer irreparable harm if he is
not released, such that the status quo should be altered. Due to Petitioner’s failure to satisfy
factors (1) reasonable likelihood of success on the merits and (2) that he will suffer irreparable
injury if requested relief is not granted, Petitioner’s Rule 65 Motion will be denied. Federal
court intervention is premature and unwarranted. The Pennsylvania state courts are the proper

forum for addressing the issues raised in this petition in the first instance.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court overrules Petitioner’s Objections to Magistrate
Judge Sitarski’s R&R (ECF No. 19) and adopts the R&R’s findings and recommendations (ECF
No. 18) in their entirety. The petition for habeas relief (ECF No. 8) is denied and dismissed.
The Rule 65 Motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (ECF No. 14)
will also be denied.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Chad F. Kenney
CHAD F. KENNEY, J.
ATTACHMENT “A”
IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
CRIMINAL SECTION - TRIAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : | TERM: HCSICA
V. : ODD1F¥30-F0I
Charles Talberr -

ORDER □□

AND NOW, to wit, this [Qj day of _Harch ,20_19 _, itis ORDERED AND
DECREED thata PROTECTIVE ORDER is entered under 18 Pa.C.S. §4954 on behalf of __.
— 200 Stentor “ehiladelohia PA. .
Kimberly Robinson ¢ Angel “Prada,
Itis HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant, ( howies Walhere refrain
from contacting or intimidating the above mentioned person(s), either personally or by family, friends, -
agents or acquaintances, and that the defendant have no communication whatsoever, directly or indirectly,
- with the person(s) above named, except through an attorney.

This ORDER is effective from Ha TO 19 LIF until this case is
finally disposed. ° .
Violation of this ORDER carries the following penalties under’ 18 Pa.C.S. $4955:
1. You may be arrested for intimidation of witnesses or victims and/or retaliation against a .
witness or victim, both felony charges. .
2. You may be held in contempt by this COURT.
3. These penalties inay be imposed whether the violation complained of has been committed
by you personally or caused or encouraged by you. .
ince, cy
Ok Rea “ Lo i. □ oo.
Sa MARR"
£0 ARASE Sa: ——___14 * eee
= ED Be se we
: % XP “Yo eat ee MC-BY-GR-0001738-2019 Comm. v. Talbert, Chartes P.
“0 ee LES eid for Court
pacar toy act”
/ ~
. 8243528121
11-300 (Rev. 9/06) .
. Coitor

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania INFORMATION
Court of Common Pleas 7
County of Philadelphia Pe
1st Judicial District : TESS .
. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
v.
Charles P. Talbert

Docket No: CP-51-CR-0001995-2019

The Attorney for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by this information charges that in the County of
Philadelphia, Pennsyivania, Charles P. Talbert:
Robbery-Threat Immed Ser Injury - (F1)
On or about: 12/22/2018 18 § 3701 §§ Alli
In the course of committing a theft, inflicted serious bodily injury upon another; and/or threatened another with, or intentionally put
another in fear of, immediate serious bodily injury; and/or committed or threatened to immediately to commit a felony of the first or
second degree; and/or inflicted bodily injury upon another, or threatened another with or intentionally put another in fear of
immediate serious bodily injury; and/or physically took or removed property from the person of another by force
Victim: Kimberly Robinson
COUNT 2: Terroristic Threats W/ Int To Terrorize Another - (M1)
On or about: 12/22/2018 18 § 2706 §§ Ai
Communicated, either directly or indirectly, a threat to commit a crime of violence with intent to terrorize another

Victim: Kimberly Robinson
Citation of Statute
and Section: 1 18§ 3701§§ Alli (F1)
2 18 § 2706 §§ A1 (M1)
A\l of which is against the Act of Assembly and the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth.

| certify that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania:
Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than
non-confidential information and documents.

. rn
Philadelphia County District Attorney
Larry Krasner
□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Comm, v. Talbert, □□□□□□
Information Fited
| 8244659851
GPCMS 9001 1 Printed: 03/21/2019 7:08:15AM

of Pennsylvania pee DAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE
of Philadelphia REAR COURT VERSION
ee: Co
py
Affiant: Warrant Control Number:
DET DIANE NELSON DIANE 626 Northwest Detectives Division AFF-0000070-2019
CAUSE BELIEF IS BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:
That after investigation | have probable cause to believe that a warrant of arrest should be issued for:
Defendant Name: CHARLES P TALBERT Gender:M Race: Black
Alias:

Address: 143 W PRICE ST Philadelphia, PA 19144

Number Code Grade Description Count
814107446 CC3701 Fi ROBBERY
CC2706 M1 TERRORISTIC THREATS
CC2705 M2 REAP
That the facts tending to establish the grounds for the issuance of the warrant of arrest and the probable cause for my belief
re as follows: { Note: if extended text exists, see following page(s))

THE AFFIANT, BEING DULY SWORN ACCORDING TO LAW, DEPOSE AND SAY THAT THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE AFFIDAVIT
RE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF AND THAT PROBABLE CAUSE TO
RREST EXISTS.
DET DIANE NELSON DIANE 626 Northwest Detectives Division
to or affirmed and subscribed before me this 9 day of January , 2019
cope Foie □□□
CF
re) Sis □□□
□□
Affiant Signature , Issuing Authority Signature □□
ICO HO OCDOT Danr * □□ Danna Tl MALIA □□□ AR

of Pennsylvania » AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE
of Philadelphia Pa COURT VERSION
Opy
Affiant: Warrant Control Number:
DET DIANE NELSON DIANE 626 Northwest Detectives Division AFF-0000070-2019
The complainant states, in summary, that on 12/22/18 at 10:53am, while working the cash register at the Kentucky Fried
Chicken located on the 6200 block of Stenton Ave., the offender approached her and threw a demand note over the front
counter in her direction. The complainant asked, "What's this?" and the offender replied, “If you don't give me the money,
I'll kill you!" The complainant states the offender had his jacket pulled up to his face covering his mouth, and she had
difficulty understanding him. She asked the offender three times what he said, and on the third time the offender stated, “If
you don't open the register, I'm gonna kill you!" The complainant then ran to the back of the restaurant and informed
witness #1, her boss, of what happened. The complainant and witness #1 then ran to the front of the store, and observed
the offender fleeing the location Southbound on Stenton Ave., though a 'Pep Boys’ parking lot towards Tulpehocken St.
Witness #1 then got into his vehicle, and followed the offender to the 1300 block of E. Tulpehocken St. where he used his
cell phone and recorded the offender talking to an older black mafe outside of a dark blue Saturn, with a PA tag
#JJK-5001. Witness #1 then left the location and flagged down P/O Gomes #3203 and P/O Samarco #3558 in the area of
Stenton Ave. and Barringer St. and informed them of the robbery.
NWODD responded to location of occurrence, photographed the scene, and interviewed the complainant and witness #1.
The scene could not processed because it had been contaminated. A demand note, written on what appears to be a piece
of a brown paper bag that read, "Give me 5k or I'm gonna kill you,” was recovered from the front counter of the restaurant.
This was placed on PR #3377360 and submitted to City Hall. Witness #1 provided the assigned with the video from his
cell phone of the offender.
On 12/27/18, P/O Gomes and P/O Samarco were on patrol in the area of 6200 Stenton Ave. when they observed the blue
Saturn PA #JJK-5001 they recognized from the video recorded by witness #1. They stopped the vehicle for investigation,
at which time they recognized the operator of the vehicle as the male speaking to the offender in the video. The operator,
witness #2, provided the officers with his recollection of his encounter with the offender on 12/22/18 that was captured on
video by witness #1. He informed the officers that he knows the offender from living in the same neighborhood as him,
and that the offender goes by the name of "Charlie." Witness #2 informed the officers that "Charlie" approached him and
asked him for a ride. Witness #2 then observed witness #1 recording them with his cell phone. He declined to give
“Charlie” a ride, and went inside his residence.
With this information, P/O Gomes and P/O Samarco searched a prior offender search database using the offenders
physical description with addresses in the 14th district and were able to produce a suspect, Charles Talbert 03/27/81, that
matched the physical description of the offender fram the video footage taken by witness #1. This information was
provided to the assigned. The assigned attempted to contact witness #2 for an interview, with negative results.
Meanwhile, the assigned submitted a facial recognition request to the Pennsylvania Criminal Intelligence Center using a
screenshot of the offender obtained from witness #1's video. The results implicated Charles Talbert 03/27/81 as a
possible suspect.
The assigned then created 2 photo arrays, each containing a photograph of Charles Talbert 03/27/81 to be viewed by the
complainant and witness #1. On 12/28/18, at 11:50am, Det. Funk #680 administered the two separate photo arrays to the
complainant and witness #1 inside the KFC located on the 6200 block of Stenton Ave. The complainant was unable to
make a positive identification. However, witness #1 positively identified Charles Talbert 03/27/81 as the offender that
committed the robbery on 12/22/18 at the Kentucky Fried Chicken located on the 6200 block of Stenton Ave., whom he
followed and recorded on his cell phone.
i certify that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of
Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents
differently than non-confidential information and documents.

THE AFFIANT, BEING DULY SWORN ACCORDING TO LAW, DEPOSE AND SAY THAT THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE AFFIDAVIT
RE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF AND THAT PROBABLE CAUSE TO
RREST EXISTS.
DET DIANE NELSON DIANE 626 Northwest Detectives Division
to or affirmed and subscribed before me this 9 day of January , 2019

V4.2 @ Fn
Ke ‘Bas □ 4
———_————_—_——_. —_—- —_—____ a wes □□□
Affiant Signature Issuing Authority Signature ASS ae
x 26th 7
Sees

FRUNG
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DCH: 18-14-107446
ee, PHILADELPHIA COUNTY DckUMC#: MC51-CR-0001736-2019
KNORS Date: Jan 09,2019
Complaint : COM-0000070-2019
Complaint Felony Copy
OF PENNSYLVANIA VS. CHARLES P TALBERT
the undersigned, do hereby state under oath or affirmation:
(1) My name is: DIANE NELSON DIANE Northwest Detectives Division
(2) |accuse CHARLES P TALBERT
who lives at 143 W PRICE ST Philadelphia, PA 19144
with violating the Penal Laws of Pennsylvania on or about Saturday, December 22, 2018
in the county of Philadelphia.
(3) The acts committed by the accused were:
ON 12-22-2018 AT OR NEAR 6200 STENTON AVENUE, IN THE COURSE OF COMMITTING A THEFT, THE DEFENDANT
THREATENED OR INTENTIONALLY PUT ANOTHER IN FEAR OF SERIOUS INJURY BY APPROACHING THE COMPLAINANT,
K.R. AND THREATENING TO KILL K.R. IF K.R. DID NOT OPEN A CASH REGISTER

In violation of Pennsylvania Penal Laws, section(s) and title(s)
CHARGES:
Code Grade Description Counts
CC3701 Fi ROBBERY 00%
CC2706 M1 = TERRORISTIC THREATS 001
CC2705 M2 REAP 001

of which is against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
(4) | ask that a warrant of arrest or a summons be issued and that the accused be required to answer the
charges | have made. This complaint has been reviewed and approved by A.D.A. JOO KIM
(5) | swear to or affirm the within complaint upon my knowledge, information and belief, and sign it on
before Philadelphia Municipal Court Judge/Arraignment Court Magistrate.
FE REE) V4.2
Uk. OF
Waa ei
Signature of Arraignment Court Magistrate. Tyg” Signature of Affiant
_Gramonveéalth’s Representative: “i cena that this Bing complies wth the provisions. af thé Public Atross
Policy ofthe Unified Judicial System of Pennsyivania: Case Readrds of the Appellate end Trial, Coutts that
* eeutira fling confidential information and cbaiments dfferertly than nen-contidential information and
‘daunerts.” : :
te
On 01/09/2019. , the above named affiant swore or affirmed that the facts set forth in the complaint were true and
carrect to the best of his/her knowledge, information and belief, and signed it in my presence. | believe the SS
within affiant to be a responsible person and that there is probable cause for the issuance of process. for
Ke ORD □□
a □□
Ke) ie
Seas”
CHARLES P TALRERT NCH 18147107446 Dann tafi Drintacts N44O/9N4AG 49-98 □□□

VOTMMOnAWEATA OF rennsylvania Ny WARKAN! UF ARKEO!
Philadelphia Municipal Court Ee COURT VERSION
County of: Philadelphia Prins aad Te Co
First Judicial District ee Has P y
: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Vv.
CHARLES P TALBERT
Defendant's Address(s):
Authority
143 W PRICE ST Philadelphia, PA 19144
Magistrate KEVIN DEVLIN
Citation/Complaint No : COM-0000070-2019
Docket No:
Warrant Controt No : WAR-0000070-2019
Citation/Complaint Filed : 01/09/2019

Grade Description Count
ROBBERY
M1 TERRORISTIC THREATS
M2 REAP

charges, if any, are listed on separate page
INFORMATION:
Age: 37 Race: Black
Sex: Male Height: 5°11 Eye Color. Brown
Weight: 205 Hair Color: Bald
Telephone Number: (215)000-0000
features (scars, tattoos, facial hair, disability, etc):

ias(es):

POLICE OFFICER:
he name of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, you are commanded to take CHARLES P TALBERT,
defendant, into custody for 315 Robbery, Commercial Estab., No Weapon
under my hand this 9 day ofJanuary , 2019

ie ¥

Signature —_ Issuing Authority Hee”

P TALRERT NCH 4R1A4107444 Pana 1 of + OnnAnH Drintad N4ISIG/9Nn1G 49-98 Aha

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania INFORMATION
Court of Common Pleas Gel Bey
County of Philadelphia eae
st Judicial District Ca Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Vv.
Charles Talbert

Docket No: CP-51-CR-0002223-2019

The Attorney for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by this information charges that in the County of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Charles Talbert:
1: Robbery-Inflict Threat Imm Bod Inj - (F2)
On or about: 12/01/2018 18 § 3701 §§ ATIV
In the course of committing a theft, inflicted bodily injury upon another, or threatened another with or intentionally put another in fear
of immediate serious bodily injury
Victim: TD Bank: Tahirah Coleman
COUNT 2: Theft By Uniaw Taking-Movable Prop - (F3)
On or about: 12/01/2018 18 § 3921 §§ A
Unlawtully took, or exercised unlawful control over, movable property of another with intent to deprive him or her thereof
Victim: TD Bank; Tahirah Coleman
Property: USC
COUNT 3: Receiving Stolen Property - (F3)
On or about: 12/01/2018 18 § 3925 §§ A
Intentionally received, retained, or disposed of movable property of another knowing that it had been stolen, or believing that it had □
probably been stolen, without intent to restore such property to the owner
Victim: TD Bank: Tahirah Coleman
Stolen Property: USC
COUNT 4: Poss Instrument Of Crime Wiint - (M1)
On or about: 12/01/2018 18§ 907 §§ A
Possessed an instrument of crime with intent to employ it criminally
Instrument of Crime: Demand Note
COUNT 5: Terroristic Threats W/ Int To Terrorize Another - (M1)
On or about: 12/01/2018 18 § 2706 §§ A1
Communicated, either directly or indirectly, a threat to commit a crime of violence with intent to terrorize another
“CP-51-CR-0002223-2019 Comm, v. Talben, Charles
Information Filed
Victim: TD Bank: Tahirah Coleman

ooo 8250472741
□□□
CPCMS $001 { Printed: 04/03/2019 7:12:41AM

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania a INFORMATION
Court of Common Pleas Raye
County of Philadelphia Shae □□
sg Ca eee a8 .
‘st Judicial District Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Vv.
Charles Talbert

Docket No: CP-51-CR-0002223-2019

The Attorney for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by this information charges that in the County of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Charles Talbert:
Citation of Statute
and Section: 1 18 § 37018§ AMIV (F2)
2 18 § 3921§§ A (F3)
3 18 § 3925 §§ A (F3)
4 18§ 907§§A (M1)
§ 18§ 2706 §§ A1 (M1)
All of which is against the Act of Assembly and the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth.

| certify that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania:
Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than
non-confidential information and documents.

: un od f-—___
Philadelphia County District Attorney
Larry Krasner

CPCMS 9001 . 2 Printed: 04/03/2019 7:12:11AM

of Pennsylvania g Shs AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE
of Phi i Es COURT VERSION
ty iladelphia ve
Opy
Affiant: Warrant Control Number:
DET MATTHEW CAREY MATTHEW 9225 Southwest Detectives Division AFF-0006622-2018
CAUSE BELIEF IS BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:
That after investigation | have probable cause to believe that a warrant of arrest should be issued for:
Defendant Name: CHARLES TALBERT Gender: Race: Black
Alias:

Address: 443 W PRICE ST PHILADELPHIA’, PA 19144

Number Code Grade Description Count
814101054 ©C3701 F2 ROBBERY _
CC3921 F3 THEFT-UNLWF TAKING
CC3925 F3 THEFT-RSP
Cc0s07 M1 PIC
CC2706 M1 TERRORISTIC THREATS
That the facts tending to establish the grounds for the issuance of the warrant of arrest and the probable cause for my belief
as follows: { Note: if extended text exists, see following page(s))

THE AFFIANT, BEING DULY SWORN ACCORDING TO LAW, DEPOSE AND SAY THAT THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE AFFIDAVIT
RE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF AND THAT PROBABLE CAUSE TO
RREST EXISTS.
DET MATTHEW CAREY MATTHEW 9225 Southwest Detectives Division
to or affirmed and subscribed before me this 4 day of January , 2019
rots wh
x eee □□ □□
SAS PR NE
ex Hort lage feof 2 is □□
eS ja}
ttt tt ttt □ nnn oN x □□
Affiant Signature Issuing Authority Signature oo

of Pennsylvania g wha AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE
of Philadelphia Pere COURT VERSION
he Cc
Opy
Affiant: Warrant Control Number:
DET MATTHEW CAREY MATTHEW 9225 Southwest Detectives Division AFF-0006622-2018
On Thursday, November 29, 2018, at approximately 12:01PM, the offender walked into the PNC Bank located at 1600
Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and handed the victim/teller a demand note that stated, "FILL ME UP A BAG OF
MONEY OR | WILL SHOOT.” The victimAeller did not comply and walked behind the teller line and put in the emergency
code into the pin pad to alert the Police. The offender then walked out of the bank empty handed in an unknown direction.
The victim/teller described the offender as a black male, medium build, approximately 5'5”, late 20's to early 30's, clean
shaven, wearing a grey hooded sweatshirt with a hood up, a black baseball cap with orange on it, and a brown leather
jacket with faux fur around the collar. This incident is being carried under DC#2018-09-050269.
On November 29, 2018, at 12:15PM, members of the FBI Task Force responded to the bank robbery and processed the
scene. The demand note was photographed and recovered, the victim/teller and the witness were interviewed, and video
surveillance to include still images were recovered.
On Saturday, December 1, 2018, at 9:40AM, the offender walked into the TD Bank located at 8600 Germantown Avenue,
Philadelphia Pennsylvania and handed the victim/teller a demand note that stated, "GIVE ME TEN THOUSAND IN 10
SECONDS OR YOU WILL DIE.” The victim/teller complied and gave the offender approximately $3000.00 dollars in United
States Currency (USC). The offender took the USC and fled the bank in an unknown direction. The offender was described
as a black male, medium build, approximately 5’5", late 20's to early 30's, light complexion, clean shaven, wearing a grey
hooded sweatshirt with the hood up, denim jacket, and white sneakers. This incident is being carried under
DC#2018-14-101054.
On December 1, 2018, at 10:43AM, Detective Corson #605 (Northwest Detectives) responded to the bank robbery and
processed the scene. The demand note was photographed and recovered, the victim/teller was interviewed, and the still
images were recovered.
On December 2, 2018, video surveillance (still images) from the bank robbery were uploaded to the Philadelphia Police
Department's home page, and were submitted to the focal media outlets to solicit tips from the public.
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018, at 9:58PM, Police Officer Stewart from the Galloway Police Department (New Jersey)
was dispatched to 716 West White Horse Pike, New Jersey for a report of a male who wanted to turn himself in for a bank
robbery that occurred in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Upon arrival, P/O Stewart made contact with Charles Prince Edward
Talbert, who stated that he robbed a TD Bank in Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia. Talbert was detained and transported to
Galloway Township Police Department (GTPD) for investigation. Once at the GTPD, P/O Stewart was able to contact
Sergeant Ward from the 14th District who verified that there was a bank robbery at the TD Bank in Chestnut Hill. P/O
Stewart was also able to locate a bulletin that was issued by the Philadelphia Police FBI Violent Crimes Task Force which
further verified a robbery at the TD Bank, 8600 Germantown Avenue, Philadelphia, PA. P/O Stewart stated that the □□□□□
image in the bulletin had distinct similarities with Charles Talbert which further corroborated his admission. Charles
Talbert had on his possession $760.00 in USC that was counted in his presence and returned to him.
Charles Talbert then stated to P/O Stewart that he had ingested cocaine approximately thirty minutes prior to making his
initial phone to Police and was subsequently transported to Atlanticare Mainland Division Hospital. While at Mainland
Hospital, P/O Stewart talked to Special Agent Greenawalt who stated the investigation was in its early stages, there was
no arrest warrant issued for Talbert, and there was no probable cause through the FBI's investigation to hold Talbert for
the bank robbery. Charles Talbert was informed he was no longer being detained and then P/O Stewart left Mainiand
Hospital. Charles Talbert stayed at the hospital awaiting medical attention.
investigators compared the driver's license photograph of Charles Talbert with that of the surveillance photographs from
the aforementioned bank robberies. Investigators believe the individual depicted in the surveillance photographs is that of
Chariac Talhart
THE AFFIANT, BEING DULY SWORN ACCORDING TO LAW, DEPOSE AND SAY THAT THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE AFFIDAVIT
RE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF AND THAT PROBABLE CAUSE TO
RREST EXISTS.
ffiant: DET MATTHEW CAREY MATTHEW 9225 Southwest Detectives Division
to or affirmed and subscribed before me this 4 day of January , 2019
So
Ye” vy □□
rcbe lye ferfy PE Qabipa □□□
he SPOS
TOLL tt CL o er, □□
Affiant Signature Issuing Authority Signature pecs, □□
. i □□□□
CO Bana 0 nf 2 Danse Dentart: N4INO/OR4 4h-459 AA

of Pennsylvania g SO. AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE
of Philadelphia FOI COURT VERSION
ey Sat Seis
Copy
Affiant: Warrant Control Number:
DET MATTHEW CAREY MATTHEW 9225 Southwest Detectives Division AFF-0006622-2018
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018, at 10:46AM, Detective McCusker #9058 and | showed the victim/teller from the PNC
Robbery a six (6) person photo array that included Charles Talbert. The victim/teller was unable to make an identification.
On December 11, 2018, at 11:24AM, Detective McCusker #9058 and | showed the victim/eller from the TD Bank Robbery
a six (6) person photo array that included Charles Talbert. The victim/teller was unable to make an identification.
| CERTIFY THAT THIS FILING COMPLIES WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE PUBLIC ACCESS POLICY OF THE
UNIFIED JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF PENNSYLVANIA CASE RECORDS OF THE APPELLATE AND TRIAL COURTS THAT
REQUIRE FILING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS DIFFERENTLY THAN NON-CONFIDENTiAL
INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS.

THE AFFIANT, BEING DULY SWORN ACCORDING TO LAW, DEPOSE AND SAY THAT THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE AFFIDAVIT
RE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF AND THAT PROBABLE CAUSE TO
RREST EXISTS.
DET MATTHEW CAREY MATTHEW 9225 Southwest Detectives Division
to or affirmed and subscribed before me this 4 day of January , 2019
ANY,
i ort.
CUARIFC TA! PERT NOH 42444N4NLA4 Dann t att ' Protege cle NMAINNIANGH Aha

'

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania we. INFORMATION
Court of Common Pleas
County of Philadelphia iA aN
ist Judicial District . Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
v.
Charles Talbert

Docket No: CP-51-CR-0002622-2019

The Attorney for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by this information charges that in the County of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Charles Talbert:
GOUNT 1; Robbery-Iinflict Threat Imm Bod Inj - (F2)
On or about: 11/29/2018 18 § 3701 §§ A1IV
In the course of committing a theft, inflicted bodily injury upon another, or threatened another with or intentionally put another in fear
of immediate serious bodily injury
Victim: PNC Bank: Naomie Lafortune
COUNT. 2: Criminal Attempt - Theft By Unlaw Taking-Movable Prop - (F3)
On or about: 11/29/2018 18 § 901 §§A
Attempted to unlawfully take, or exercise unlawful control over, movable property of another with intent to deprive him or her thereof
Victim: PNC Bank: Naomie Lafortune
COUNT 3: Criminal Attempt - Receiving Stolen Property - (F3)
On or about; 11/29/2018 18 § 901 §§A
Attempted to receive, retain, or dispose of movable property of another knowing that it had been stolen, or believing that it had
probably been stolen, without intent to restore such property to the owner
Victim: PNC Bank: Naomie Lafortune
COUNT 4: Poss Instrument Of Crime WiInt - (M1)
On or about: 11/28/2018 18 § 907 §§ A
Possessed an instrument of crime with intent to employ it criminally
Instrument of Crime: Demand Note
COUNT. 5: Terroristic Threats W/ Int To Terrorize Another - (M1)
On or about: 11/29/2018 18 § 2706 §§ Al
Communicated, either directly or indirectly, a threat to commit a crime of violence with intent to terrorize another
Victim: Naomie Lafortune
CP-51-CR-0002622-2019 Comm. v, Taiben, Chartes
laformation Filed

. 8256888791

i
CPCMS 9001 1 Printed: 04/17/2019 6:59:20AM

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania . We, INFORMATION
Court of Common Pleas « □□ ee
County of Philadelphia Re Vivory it
iat ie ETS .
‘st Judicial District Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
v.
Charles Talbert

Docket No: CP-51-CR-0002622-2019

The Attorney for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by this information charges that in the County of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Charles Talbert:
Citation of Statute
and Section: 1 18 § 3701§§ A1lV (F2)
2 18§ 901§§A(F3)
3 18§ 901§§A (F3)
4 18§ 907 §§A (M1)
5 18 § 2706 §§ At (M1)
All of which is against the Act of Assembly and the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth.

certify that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania:
Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than
non-confidential information and documents.

Z od. f-——__
Philadelphia County District Attorney
Larry Krasner

i
CPCMS 9001 2 Printed: 04/17/2019 6:59:20AM

a“ . ‘
"EIN THE -COURT OF COMMONPLEAS- OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY .)
CRIMINAL. SECTION - TRIAL DIVISION mo □

“COMMONWEALTH OF-PENNSYLVANIA =} 0 □□ -22.0 0-7 * TERM: 3: □□
V. ota SN
. tele TO Lina □
nods, Cdtoucks EMTS W=-QOLTNG= FOAM

ORDER □□

AND'NOW, towit, this_L}—aay of I coe \. 20 \Q__, itis ORDERED AND
-DECREED that.a: PROTECTIVE oe éntered under_18 Pa.C.S. §4954 on behalf of _. □□
h In Ox) 3 “\ oto “A SN Be .
ot eer i
. . we. SN
Itis HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant, C hav\es, + \oac refrain
from contacting or intimidating the above mentioned person(s), either personally or by ‘family;-friends-"—
agents or acquaintances, and that the defendant have no communication whatsoever, directly or indirectly,
with the person(s) above named, except through an attorney. te □

This ORDER is effective from i mrt \W LNA until this case is, □
finally disposed. nme
Violation of this ORDER carries the following penalties under 18 Pa.C.S..§4955: Ts,
1. You may be arrested for intimidation of witnesseg or-victims and/or retaliation against a
witness or victim, both felony charges © 7

2s Yourmay~be field in contempt by this COURT. .
3. These penalties may be imposed whether the violation complained of has been committed
wiih tiny □ -
by you personally or caused or encouraged. by. OY. OF a ny, □□
= SET
2. oS bay a, Qe
EG oR mE,
BB aS ies
Ue RO SS
! Gy eS S
“yp Me pen yw
4 “oe Ten ww
DATE ENTERED: fro \ ‘ANN 204 mo,
a X
11-302 ° ‘ .

EEE NO EE OSE oe
| Commonwealth VS. DektMC# □□□
CHARLES TALBERT MC51-CR-0000719-2019 18-09-050269
Address: COMPLAINT FILED BY: Codefendants: 0
143 WPRICE ST Name: PNC BANK
Philadelphia PA 19144- Date: 00/00/0000 Cornplainants: 1
PID:0810247 SID: 24395324 DOB: 03/27/1981 | OTN#: U1500450
Chrg = O Court Description Gr Ct State Chrg O Court Description Gr Ct
20006 ROBBERY F2 01 €C3921 A 50004 THEFT-UNLWF TAKING F3 01
A §8003 THEFT-RSP F3 01 CC0907 43001 PIC Mi 01
37550 TERRORISTIC THREATS M1 01

Date: 01/08/2019 BY: MATTHEW CAREY MATTHEW Badge#: 263012 Group Id: / 2
Action Date: 01/24/2019 Time:08:00 Next Action Location: $03: 1301 Filbert Street, Stout Center
Disposition: Bail Amount:$50,000.00 Appeal Information Arrest Type: WA
of Release: Bench Warrants Bail Appeal Judge:
Stay-Away Order Issued Appeal By:
Notes: See Supplemental Page For Complete Text
Special Needs: .
AC Magistrate: JANE RICE Attorney for Def: Public Defender
Court Clerk: MARGARET SOLOMON
ADA/DA Rep: NICO CERIALE
Arraignment Site: PD
Arraignment Date: 01/09/2019 Time: 10:35
Preliminary Hearing or Trial Continuances
BW, Sc
Action Continued To Reason for Continuance Code gos... Judge
BN ISSO ce
Continued To Reason for Continuance Code Dposo. Judge
eee BW Issued
Continued To Reason for Continuance Code Ogoso. Judge
Preliminary Hearing Disposition
Date Place Attorney for Defendant (Name and Address)
Court Clerk Court Reporter Atty No. ADA
(waiving) hearing, above defendant is held for Court as follows:
Arraignment Date and Room
is ordered that the charge(s) against the defendant are to be presented Date: Judge:
the District Attorney for the preparation of information.
Trial Disposition Date . □□□□□□□
Date Place Attorney for Defendant (Name and Address) Atty No.
Court Clerk Court Reporter Plea Verdict Atty for Prosecution
i i Date:
ereby certify that the above is a true and correct Judge: (Seal)
and transcript. Witness my hand and Seal.
Use reverse side for additional notes
DOCTIAIENT TAI DERICLANIES hos. | «40NanENRSeO N4iAOINndO 4NcAneAD

EE EE ESE NE □□□□

Code ont. to Judge Cont. to Room On (Date) Contin, Code Cont. to Judge Cont. to Room On (Date)
fense Prosecution Defense Prosecution
Not Ready DC Ready (1) Not Ready [Cl Ready C1 Not Ready ClReady I Not Ready

Code Coni. to Judge Cont. to Room On (Date) Cont. to Judge On (Date)
Prosecution Defense Prosecution
OlReady [1] Not Ready C)Ready (CJ Not Ready Ci Ready [J Not Ready CJ Ready (1 Not Ready

MMONWEALTH VS. INFORMATION NO.
Control No. Name, A/K/A, Address, Zip Code Rule 1100 Expiration Date Year, Term & No.
Photo No. This Case Involves Nos.
to
Al DOCTISAGANT TAIPRCOTCRADI rae nou. § 4¢8nonenoce AA@INOIANaAn ANLANLAO

□□□
otes; NOTE: DEFENDANT HAS AN OPEN BENCH WARRANT--PER ADA REP.

AS IAAccaArT’ TALMeEeT KLIARI re hee.) AAMPARANR KRAIRAIAAAA ANA.AALIO

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10401485. Public record. Not legal advice.