Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Ethan Andrew Hannold, Petitioner v. Bobbi Jo Salamon, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Rockview, et al.
Supreme Court briefNov 17, 2023
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Case: 22-2731
Document: 11-1
Page: 1
Date Filed: 05/22/2023
4
* AMENDED CLD-053
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
C.A. No. 22-2731
ETHAN ANDREW HANNOLD, Appellant
VS.
SUPERINTENDENT ROCKVIEW SCI, ET AL.
(W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2:19-cv-00744)
Present:
GREENAWAY, JR., MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges
Submitted:
* Appellant’s request for a certificate of appealability under 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
in the above-captioned case.
Respectfully,
Clerk
ORDER
The request for a certificate of appealability is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
Hannold cannot show that jurists of reason would debate the District Court’s decision to
dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d); Slack v.
McDaniel. 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also Holland v. Florida. 560 U.S. 631, 652
(2010) (describing an attorney’s failure to file a timely § 2254 petition and ignorance “of
the date on which the limitations period expired” as “simple negligence” that does not
warrant equitable tolling); Lawrence v. Florida. 549 U.S. 327, 336-37 (2007) (“Attorney
miscalculation is simply not sufficient to warrant equitable tolling, particularly in the
Case: 22-2731
Document: 11-1
Date Filed: 05/22/2023
Page: 2
postconviction context.”); Johnson v. Hendricks, 314 F.3d 159, 163 (3d Cir. 2002)
(holding that misinformation from attorney as to filing deadline does not warrant tolling).
Appellant’s motion for an extension of time is denied.
By the Court,
s/Joset>h A. Greenaway, Jr.
Circuit Judge
Dated: May 22, 2023
Sb/cc: Ethan A. Hannold
All Counsel of Record
A True Copy;y°
.t
Patricia S. Dodszuweit, Clerk
Certified Order Issued in Lieu of Mandate
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 22-2731
ETHAN ANDREW HANNOLD,
Appellant
V.
SUPERINTENDENT ROCKVIEW SCI;
ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA;
DISTRICT ATTORNEY CLARION COUNTY
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Civ. No. 2:19-cv-00744)
District Judge: J. Nicholas Ranjan
PETITION FOR REHEARING
BEFORE: CHAGARES, ChiefJudge, and JORDAN, HARDIMAN, SHWARTZ,
KRAUSE, RESTREPO, BIBAS, PORTER, MATEY, PHIPPS, FREEMAN,
MONTGOMERY-REEVES, CHUNG, Circuit Judges*
* The Honorable Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. was a member of the merits panel. Judge
Greenaway retired from the Court on June 15, 2023 and did not participate in the
consideration of the petition for rehearing.
The petition for rehearing filed by petitioner Ethan Andrew Hannold in the abovecaptioned matter has been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this
Court and to all other available circuit judges of the Court in regular active service. No
judge who concurred in the decision asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit
judges of the Court in regular active service who are not disqualified did not vote for
rehearing by the Court en banc. It is now hereby ORDERED that the petition is DENIED.
BY THE COURT
s/ Paul B. Matey
Circuit Judge
Dated: August 24, 2023
Sb/cc: Ethan A. Hannold
All Counsel of Record
Case 2:19-cv-00744-NR-L.PL Document 35 Filed 09/02/22 Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ETHAN ANDREW HANNOLD,
)
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT MARK
GARMAN, et al.,
Respondents.
2:19-cv-744-NR-LPL
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION (ECF 23)
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Lenihan’s Report and Recommendation
(ECF 23), recommending that Petitioner Ethan Andrew Hannold’s Petition for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus be dismissed as untimely, or alternatively be denied on the merits.
Mr. Iiannold, proceeding pro se, has filed objections to the R&R. ECF 30. After
carefully considering the record and upon a de novo review of the R&R, the Court
adopts Magistrate Judge Lenihan’s R&R as to the dismissal of Mr. Hannold s petition
as untimely.
As to the R&R’s dismissal of the petition as untimely, the Court overrules Mr.
Hannold’s objections, and adopts Magistrate Judge Lenihan’s R&R as the opinion of
the Court, with some additional explanation below. See United States v. Raddatz,
447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980) (“[I]n providing for a ‘de novo determination’ ... Congress
intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound judicial
discretion, chose to place on a magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.”
(cleaned up)); Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (“[I]t must be
i Because the statute-of-limitations issue is dispositive, the Court need not and does
not address the merits of Mr. Hannold’s petition, or otherwise adopt the R&R’s
alternative conclusions on the merits of the petition. See, e.g., Ohler v. Lamas, 542
F. App’x 205, 208 (3d Cir. 2013) (“Because we hold that Ohler’s petition is untimely
under the AEDPA, we need not reach the merits of his claims.”).
Case 2:19-cv-00744-NR-LPL Document 35 Filed 09/02/22
Page 2 of 5
assumed that the normal practice of the district judge is to give some reasoned
consideration to the magistrate’s report before adopting it as the decision of the court.
When a district court does accept the Magistrate’s report, that is a judicial act, and
represents the district court’s considered judgment.” (cleaned up)).
While Mr. Hannold concedes that his petition is untimely, he argues that
equitable tolling should apply. But Magistrate Judge Lenihan concluded, and this
Court agrees, that equitable tolling does not apply here.
To equitably toll the
ABDPA’s one-year limitations period, a petitioner must show “(1) that he has been
*
pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in
his way and prevented timely filing.” Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010)
(cleaned up).
“This conjunctive standard requires showing both elements” before
tolling is permitted. Sistrunk v. Rozum, 674 F.3d 181, 190 (3d Cir. 2012) (emphasis
in original).
“There are no bright lines in determining whether equitable tolling is
warranted in a given case.” Id. (cleaned up). That said, “courts must be sparing in
their use of equitable tolling[.]” Id. (cleaned up). They should apply equitable tolling
“only when the principles of equity would make the rigid application of a limitation
period unfair.” Id. (cleaned up). “Mere excusable neglect is not sufficient” to meet
this standard. Miller v. N.J. State Dep’t of Corr., 145 F.3d 616, 619 (3d Cir. 1998)
(citations omitted); see also Holland, 560 U.S. at 655-56 (Alito, J. concurring) ( [Ojur
prior cases make it abundantly clear that attorney negligence is not an extraordinary
circumstance warranting equitable tolling. ... [Mjistakes of counsel are constructively
attributable to the client, at least in the postconviction context.”).
Additionally,
“[i]n
non-capital
cases,
attorney
error,
miscalculation,
inadequate research, or other mistakes have not been found to rise to the
‘extraordinary’ circumstances required for equitable tolling.” Fahy v. Horn, 240 F.3d
239, 244 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing cases). While Mr. Hannold relies extensively on the
-2-
Case 2:19-cv-00744-NR-LPL Document 35 Filed 09/02/22 Page 3 of 5
Supreme Court’s opinion in Holland, that case, unlike this one, rose in the deathpenalty context, and so applied a stricter standard than the one applicable here.2 See,
e.g., Champney v. Sec. Pa. Dep’i of Corrs., 469 F. App x 113, 116, n.4 (3d Cir. 2012)
(‘•We agree with the District Court’s conclusion that Champney’s instant appeal is
not a capital case and therefore is not entitled to any special leniency.”); Gallawshew
v. Kaufmann, No. 15-4524, 2016 WL 4727155, at *2 (E.D. Pa. July 21, 2016), report
and. recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 4721114 (Sept. 8, 2016).
Nonetheless, Mr. Iiannold’s arguments and objections boil down to three
essential points: his attorney did not inform him that the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court denied his allowance of appeal; his attorney let the AEDPA deadline expire;
and his attorney, due to the attorney’s error and miscalculation, gave him incorrect
information about the relevant AEDPA deadlines. But in this non-capital case, Mr.
Hannold has not shown that these missteps rise to the level of extraordinary
circumstances.”3 See, e.g., Holland, 560 U.S. at 652 ( [Attorney] Collins failed to file
!
2 Further, while not dispositive in this case, the petitioner in Holland produced
numerous letters and other evidence showing his diligence and his attorney’s
malfeasance. The Supreme Court largely based its conclusion in that case on the
plethora of evidence the petitioner provided. See Holland, 560 U.S. at 652; see also
id. at 636-43 (describing the petitioner’s letters .to his attorney). In contrast, Mr.
Hannold provides no such evidence.
3 Mr. Hannold, in his objections to the R&R, relies heavily on the Third Circuit s nonprecedential opinion in Schlager v. Superintendent Fayette SCI, 789 F. Appx 938 (3d
Cir. 2019). In Schlager, the panel concluded that the petitioner’s post-conviction
counsel had abandoned the petitioner, constituting extraordinary circumstances. Id.
at 941-42. Even setting aside that Schlager is non-precedential, however, it is
distinguishable from Mr. Hannold’s case. In Schlager, petitioner and his father
“repeatedly called counsel’s office, wrote letters, and tried to make appointments to
no avail.” Id. at 941. Instead, counsel’s office specifically and affirmatively told
petitioner that they would advise him when the state court had ruled on his appeal.
Id. Because of these affirmations, the court found that the attorney made “misleading
statements” that “stymied” the petitioner’s “ability to file” when counsel failed to
inform the petitioner of the state court’s ruling. Id. at 941-42; see also id. at 942
(“Schlager reasonably relied on his counsels repeated representations that he would
-3-
Case 2:19-cv-00744-NR-LPL Document 35 Filed 09/02/22 Page 4 of 5
Holland’s petition on time and appears to have been unaware of the date on which
the limitations period expired—two facts that, alone, might suggest simple
negligence.”); LaCava v. Kyler, 398 F.3d 271, 276 (3d Cir. 2005) (“LaCava fares no
better by implying that counsel was derelict in failing to timely notify him of the state
court’s disposition. We have stated that in non-capital cases, attorney error,
miscalculation, inadequate research, or other mistakes have not been found to rise to
the ‘extraordinary’ circumstances required for equitable tolling.” (cleaned up));
Middleton v. Warden, No. 19:1594, 2020 WL 7059633, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2020)
’
(“[Extraordinary circumstances have been found only where (1) the respondent has
actively misled the petitioner, (2) the petitioner has in some extraordinary way been
prevented from asserting his rights, (3) the petitioner has timely asserted his rights
mistakenly in the wrong forum, or (4) the court itself has misled a party regarding
the steps that the party needs to take to preserve a claim.” (citing Brinson v. Vaughn,
398 E.3d 225, 230 (3d Cir. 2005))). Because Mr. Hannold has not sufficiently shown
extraordinary circumstances justifying equitable tolling, the Court overrules his
objections.'1
notify Schlager when the appeal was resolved.” (emphasis added)). In contrast, Mr.
Hannold neither “repeatedly” reached out to counsel, nor received a specific
affirmation that counsel would contact him as soon as the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court ruled on his petition. Indeed, Mr. Hannold states that the only reason he had
this expectation was because his attorney had “previously inform[ed] Mr. Hannold
of the outcome of all previous appeals in a timely manner, [so] Mr. Hannold had no
reason to believe [his attorney] would do otherwise upon the outcome of his petition
for allowance of appeal[.]” ECF 30, p. 5. But not only does Mr. Hsnnold’s
acknowledgement conflict with his accusations of attorney abandonment, it also
shows that he never received an affirmative representation from counsel that misled
him.
'J Additionally, while Magistrate Judge Lenihan did not address the second
requirement for equitable tolling—whether Mr. Hannold pursued his rights
diligently—the Court doubts that Mr. Hannold meets this prong either. First, Mr.
Hannold does not provide any evidence that he reached out to his attorney for updates
on his appeals and petitions while they were pending. Second, after learning that the
-4-
Case 2:19-cv-00744-NR-LPL Document 35 Filed 09/02/22 Page 5 of 5
Thus, with the addition of the discussion above, the Court adopts Magistrate
Judge Lenihan’s R&R (ECF 23) as to the dismissal of the petition as untimely, and
overrules Mr. Hannold’s objections (ECF 30).
Mr. Hannold’s petition (ECF 4) is
DISMISSED with prejudice, and no certificate of appealability will issue. The Clerk
of Court shall mark this case closed.
BY THE COURT:
Date: September 2, 2022
/s/ J. Nicholas Ranian______
United States District Judge
Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his petition for allowance of appeal, thereby
triggering the AEDPA clock, Mr. Hannold apparently waited fourteen days to act,
including contacting his attorney and filing his pro se habeas petition. Third, the
reason Mr. Hannold was short on time following the denial of his allowance of appeal
wa s because most of his one-year limitations period expired before he filed his petition
for allowance of appeal in the first place. See Martin v. Administrator N.J. State
Prison, 23 F.4th 261, 273 (3d Cir. 2022) (“This ‘reasonable diligence’ requirement
applies not only to a petitioner’s filing for federal habeas relief, but it also extends to
the steps that the petitioner takes to exhaust available state court remedies.”
(cleaned up)). While the Court need not decide whether Mr. Hannold met his burden
of showing that he “pursu[ed] his rights with ‘reasonable diligence,”’ which is a “factspecific inquiry,” the Court finds that these considerations further support dismissing
Mr. Hannold’s petition as untimely. See id.
■ 5 -
♦
Case 2:19-cv-00744-NR-LPL Document 23 Filed 07/20/21 Page 1 of 14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ETHAN ANDREW HANNOLD,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT MARX
GARMAN, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA, and CLARION
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 19 — 744
District Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan
Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan
)
)
)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I.
RECOMMENDATION
For the following reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 4) filed by Petitioner Ethan Andrew Hannold be dismissed as untimely
or, in the alternative, be denied. It is also recommended that a certificate of appealability be
denied.
II.
REPORT
Currently pending before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Petition )
filed by Petitioner Ethan Andrew Hannold (“Petitioner”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF
No. 4.) Petitioner challenges his June 18, 2014 judgment of sentence out of Clarion County,
Pennsylvania. For the following reasons, it is recommended that the Petition be dismissed as
untimely or, in the alternative, be denied. It is also recommended that a certificate of
appealability be denied.
1
Case 2:19-CV-00744-NR-LPL Document 23 Filed 07/20/21 Page 2 of 14
A.
Factual and Procedural Summary
The Pennsylvania Superior Court, in Petitioner’s direct appeal, provided the following
summary of the underlying factual history:
These cases involved two brutal and senseless attacks on innocent women.
During the one incident, at case number 170 CR 2013, [Petitioner] executed a
plan of running a young woman off the road with his car and then coming to her
aid[] for the bizarre purpose of making himself feel good about helping someone.
When the young woman told [Petitioner] her father was coming and she did not
need his help, he felt rejected and became incensed and punched her many times
through her open car window, breaking her nose and bloodying her face. He then
sexually assaulted her by grabbing her between her legs and ripping her pants off.
He tried to pull her through the window, but he fell down and she managed to get
away.
In the second case, number 41 CR 2014, [Petitioner] drove up behind a woman
who was walking in town in a residential area. Without warning, he ran her down
with his car and then fled the scene. She suffered a traumatic brain injury.
Commonwealth v Hannhold. Nos. 1088 WDA 2014, 1089 WDA2014, 2016 WL 509468, at *1
(Pa. Super. Feb. 5, 2016) (quoting Trial Court Opinion, 9/5/14, at 1). As a result of both
incidents, Petitioner was charged with multiple crimes. He proceeded to negotiate plea
agreements in both cases. At 170 CR 2013, Petitioner entered a guilty plea on August 28, 2013,
to aggravated assault, robbery by threat of immediate serious injury, recklessly endangering
another person (“REAP”), and indecent assault by forcible compulsion. All other charges were
nol prossed by the Commonwealth. The indecent assault charge required an assessment by the
Sexual Offenders Assessment Board to determine if Petitioner was a sexually violent predator
(“SVP”). The SVP hearing was held on May 16, 2014. Following the hearing, the trial court
deemed Petitioner to be an SVP. At 41 CR 2014, Petitioner entered a guilty plea to aggravated
assault on June 18, 2014. All other charges were nol prossed by the Commonwealth. On June
18, 2014, Petitioner was sentenced, at both dockets, to an aggravated sentence of twenty-five to
2
Case 2:19-cv-00744-NR-LPL Document 23 Filed 07/20/21 Page 3 of 14
fifty years of incarceration in conformity with the plea agreements. The sentence included
lifetime registration as an SVP. See Commonwealth v. Hannold, No. 86 WDA 2018, 2018 WL
3737971, at *1 (Pa. Super. Aug. 7, 2018).
Petitioner timely filed a direct appeal, and on February 5, 2016, the Superior Court
affirmed Petitioner’s judgment of sentence. (ECF No. 9-1.) Petitioner did not file a petition for
allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
On January 30,2017, Petitioner, through counsel, filed a timely petition pursuant to
Pennsylvania’s Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) where he asserted several instances of
ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After a series of continuances, the PCRA court held an
evidentiary hearing on August 22, 2017. (ECF No. 13-2.) On December 12, 2017, the PCRA
court entered an order and opinion denying the PCRA petition. (ECF No. 13-3.) Petitioner
timely filed a notice of appeal, and on August 7, 2018, the Superior Court affirmed the denial of
PCRA relief. (ECF Nos. 13-4,13-5.) Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for allowance of
appeal, which was denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on February 26,2019. (ECF No.
9-4.)
Petitioner initiated the instant habeas proceeding on June 18, 2019.1 (ECF No. 1.) In his
Petition, he raises two claims. The first is not so much a claim, but rather an excuse to excuse
the untimely filing of his Petition. Specifically, he asserts that he is entitled to equitable tolling
due to the ineffectiveness of his PCRA counsel in failing inform him that the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court denied his petition for allowance of appeal. The second claim is a series of
ineffective assistance of counsel claims, including (1) failing to attend the Sexual Offenders
This is the filing date pursuant to the prison mailbox rule. See Houston v. Lack. 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
3
Case 2:19-cv-00744-NR-LPL Document 23 Filed 07/20/21 Page 4 of 14
Assessment Board Hearing and advise him of his right to remain silent during such assessment,
at which Petitioner incriminated himself by confessing to other criminal acts for which he was
later charged; (2) failing to obtain mental health evaluation reports and/or a psychiatric
evaluation to obtain a more favorable sentence for Petitioner despite being aware that he had
previously received psychiatric treatment; (3) failing to obtain a psychiatric evaluation of
Petitioner because, according to Petitioner, he has impulse control disorder which caused him to
enter an involuntary guilty plea; and (4) failing to “suppress” a letter between the judge and an
independent citizen. (ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their Answer to the Petition on September
20, 2019, asserting that the Petition should be dismissed because it was untimely filed and/or
r
denied because there is no merit to any of Petitioner’s claims. (ECF No. 13.) Petitioner filed a
Reply to their Answer on December 23, 2019. (ECF No. 18.)
B.
Discussion
1. The Petition should be dismissed as untimely.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) imposes a oneyear limitations period for state prisoners seeking federal habeas review. It is codified at 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d) and it provides:
(1)
A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of
habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State
court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of—
(A)
the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of
direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B)
the date on which the impediment to filing an application created
by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the
United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from
. filing by such State action;
4
Case 2:19-cv-00744-NR-L.PL Document 23 Filed 07/20/21 Page 5 of 14
(2)
(C)
the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially
recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly
recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively
applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D)
the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims
presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due
diligence.
The time during which a properly filed application for State post
conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment
or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation
under this section.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
The statute of limitations set out in § 2244(d)(1) must be applied on a claim-by-claim
:>
basis. Fielder v. Varner, 379 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2004), cert denied, 543 U.S. 1067 (2005). In
analyzing whether a petition for writ of habeas corpus has been timely filed under the one-year
limitations period, a federal court must undertake a three-part inquiry. First, the court must
determine the “trigger date” for the one-year limitations period pursuant to section 2244(d)(1).
Second, the court must determine whether any “properly filed” applications for post-conviction
or collateral relief were pending during the limitations period that would toll the statute pursuant
to section 2244(d)(2). Third, the court must determine whether any of the other exceptions or
equitable tolling should be applied on the facts presented.
Here, it appears that the “trigger date” for all of Petitioner’s claims is the date on which
his judgment of sentence became final, which in this case was March 7, 2016, the last day
Petitioner had to file a petition for allowance of appeal in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court after
5
Case 2:19-cv-00744-NR-LPL Document 23 Filed 07/20/21 Page 6 of 14
the Superior Court affirmed his judgment of sentence.2 See Swartz v. Meyers, 204 F.3d 417, 419
(3d Cir. 2000) (noting that a judgment becomes “final” at the conclusion of direct review or the
expiration of time for seeking such review). Thus, the first day of Petitioner’s one-year statute of
limitations was March 8, 2016, and, absent any tolling for “properly filed” applications for post
conviction relief, Petitioner had until March 8, 2017, to file a timely federal habeas petition
challenging his judgment of sentence. As previously noted, however, Petitioner did not file his
Petition in this case until June 18, 2019. Accordingly, the Court must next determine whether
Petitioner can take advantage of the tolling provision in section 2244(d)(2).
Section 2244(d)(2) provides that the one-year limitations period is tolled during the
pendency of a “properly filed” state post-conviction proceeding. Here, Petitioner filed a PCRA
Petition on January 30, 2017, which was 328 days after his judgment of sentence became final.
After the filing of the PCRA Petition, Petitioner’s one-year statute of limitations was tolled until
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his petition for allowance of appeal on February 26,
2019. With only 37 days remaining (365-328=37), Petitioner’s one-year statute of limitations
started to run again on February 27, 2019, and it fully expired on April 4, 2019. As previously
stated, however, Petitioner did not file the instant Petition until June 18, 2019, which was 74
days after his statute of limitations expired. As such, the Petition was untimely filed.
Having failed to meet AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations, the Petition can only be
saved by the application of equitable tolling or the Supreme Court’s recognized fundamental
miscarriage of justice exception. See Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010); see also
2 The thirtieth day, the final day Petitioner had to file a petition for allowance of appeal, fell on March 6, 2016, a
Sunday. Petitioner therefore had until the next day, March 7, 2016, to file his petition for allowance of appeal. See
Pa. R. Civ. P. 106(b).
6
Case 2:19-cv-00744-NR-LPL Document 23 Filed 07/20/21 Page 7 of 14
McQuggin v. Perkins. 569 U.S. 383 (2013). Here, Petitioner recognizes that his Petition was
untimely filed, but he argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling because he did not learn that
his petition for allowance of appeal had been denied until he was informed by his father on June
6, 2019. Petitioner claims that his father had been informed of the denial by Petitioner’s attorney
via email “sometime after said denial,” but that “during that time period” his father “received a
double-lung transplant from Cleveland Clinic” and was not discharged until mid-May of 2019.3
(ECFNo. 9, pp. 19-20.)
A petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling only if he shows that: (1) he has been pursuing
his rights diligently, and (2) some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented
** *
timely filing. Holland. 560 U.S. at 649 (citing Pace, 544 U.S. at 418). See also Ross v. Varano,
712 F.3d 784, 798-804 (3d Cir. 2013); United States v. Thomas, 713 F.3d 165, 174 (3d Cir.
2013); Mnnchinski v, Wilson, 694 F.3d 308, 329-32 (3d Cir. 2012). “This conjunctive standard
requires showing both elements before we will permit tolling.” Sistrunk v. Rozum, 674 F.3d
181, 190 (3d Cir. 2012) (emphasis in original). The Third Circuit has advised that:
“[tjhere are no bright lines in determining whether equitable tolling is warranted
in a given case.” Pabon v. Mahanov, 654 F.3d 385, 399 (3d Cir. 2011).
Nevertheless, “courts must be sparing in their use of equitable tolling,” Seitzinger
v. Reading Host). & Medical Ctr., 165 F.3d 236, 239 (3d Cir. 1999), and should
do so “only when the principles of equity would make the right application of a
limitation period unfair.” Miller Tv. New Jersey State Dept, of Corr.l, 145 F.3d
[616, 618 (3d Cir. 1998)].
Sistrunk, 674 F.3d at 190. “[E]ven in situations in which equitable -tolling initially applies, a
party must file suit within a reasonable period of time after realizing that such a suit has become
3 The evidence submitted by Petitioner, which includes a letter from a doctor at Cleveland Clinic’s Lunch Transplant
Program, demonstrates that Petitioner’s father was admitted to Cleveland Clinic on March 10, 2019, and discharged
from The Transplant House on April 29, 2019. (ECFNo. 9-5.)
7
Case 2:19-cv-00744-NR-LPL Document 23 Filed 07/20/21 Page 8 of 14
necessary.” Walker v. Frank. 56 F. A’ppx 577, 582 (3d Cir.2003) (citing Hentosh v. Herman M.Finch University of Health Sciences. 167 F.3d 1170, 1175 (7th Cir. 1999)). “A grant of
equitable tolling, unlike statutory tolling, does not shift the deadline so that each day of tolling
results in a one day postponement of the deadline.” Ragan v. Horn, 598 F.Supp.2d 677, 680
(E.D. Pa. 2009) (citing Phillips v. Heine. 984 F.2d 489, 492 (D.C.Cir. 1993)). “Rather, once the
‘extraordinary circumstances’ justifying equitable tolling have disappeared, the petitioner must
file as soon as ‘reasonably possible’”. Id. (quoting Walker, 56 F. App’x at 581-82). “The United
States Court'of Appeals for the Third Circuit has suggested that one month is a sufficient period
of time for a petitioner to file a pro se habeas petition.” Mitchell v. Beard, No. 06-4746, 2010
WL 1135998, at *1 n.3 (E.D. Pa., 2010) (citing Brown v. Shannon, 322 F.3d 768, 774 (3d Cir.
2003)). The Third Circuit has also held that eleven months is an unreasonable time to wait to file
a habeas corpus petition. Id. (citing Walker, 56 F. App’x at 582 n.5).
Petitioner does not state what day his attorney emailed his father to inform him of the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision on his petition for allowance of appeal, nor does he
provide this Court with evidence, either by way of an affidavit or a copy of the aforementioned
email, that demonstrates that his attorney informed his father, but not him, of the state court’s
unfavorable decision and on what day that occurred. Furthermore, despite the fact that Petitioner
states that it was “impossible” for his father to inform him of the denial of the petition for
allowance of appeal because he was receiving a double-lung transplant at the Cleveland Clinic,
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate such an impossibility. Petitioner does not state the day his
father received the email from the attorney, only that it was “sometime after said denial” of his
petition for allowance of appeal. However, his petition for allowance of appeal was denied on
February 26, 2019 and his father was not admitted to Cleveland Clinic for his procedure until
8
Case 2:19-cv-00744-NR-LPL Document 23 Filed 07/20/21 Page 9 of 14
March 10, 2019. Without knowing the day the email was sent, the Court cannot assume that it
was m fact impossible for Petitioner’s father to inform his son of the denial of the petition for
allowance of appeal as he could have been notified before he was admitted for his procedure or
even shortly after he was discharged from The Transplant House on April 29, 2019, both of
which occurred before the day Petitioner alleges he was notified, on June 4, 2019.
However, even taking Petitioner’s allegations as true, the undersigned does not find the
instant matter to be one of the “rare situation[s] where equitable tolling is demanded by sound
legal principals as well as the interests of justice.” Jones v. Morton, 195 F.3d 153, 159 (3d Cir.
1999). In addressing the “extraordinary circumstances” prong for equitable tolling in non-capital
cases, the Third Circuit found that a prisoner’s allegation of delayed notice of the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court’s disposition of his petition for allowance of appeal did not constitute
extraordinary circumstances required to warrant equitable tolling. See LaCava v. Kyler, 398
F.3d 271, 276 (3d Cir. 2005). According to the court, neither the fact that the petitioner did not
receive personal notice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s denial of his petition, nor
petitioner’s attorney’s failure to timely notify him of the denial, constituted extraordinary
circumstances to warrant equitable tolling of the limitations period for filing a habeas petition.
Id. In fact, district courts in the Third Circuit have consistently rejected claims of equitable
tolling solely based on an attorney’s failure to provide their client with notice of a state court’s
unfavorable decision finding them to be the type of “garden variety attorney neglect” that does
not amount to an extraordinary circumstance. See Pennington v. Tice, No. 17-cv-0330, 2018
WL 7683408, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 29,2018); Howard v. Kerestes, No. 2:14-cv-1234, 2016 WL
3455372, at *3 (W.D. Pa. May 26, 2016); Etienne v. Sobina, No. 10-5522, 2011 WL 3497337, at
*5 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 10, 2011); London v. Miner. No. 07-10, 2008 WL 2952860, at *4 (W.D. Pa.
9
Case 2:19-cv-00744-NR-LPL Document 23 Filed 07/20/21 Page 10 of 14
July 30, 2008); Painter v. Wilson. No. 05-588, 2006 WL 3489792, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 30,
2006); Casiano v. Folino. 2006 WL 1030246, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 19, 2006); Smith v. Gillis, No.
03-6186, 2004 WL 573957, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 4, 2004); Poller v. Kvler. No. 02-CY-982, 2003
WL 22025882, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2003). Accordingly, even if Petitioner’s attorney failed
to notify him directly of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s denial of his petition for allowance
of appeal, this failure alone, which in the undersigned’s opinion amounts to simple attorney
neglect rather than an instance of serious attorney misconduct that courts have found could rise
to the level of an extraordinary circumstance, see Holland v. Florida. 560 U.S. 631 (2010), is not
an extraordinary circumstance that warrants equitable tolling.
Finally, the undersigned notes that the more likely explanation for why Petitioner’s
Petition was untimely filed is found in Petitioner’s Brief in Support of his Petition wherein he
states that on June 18,2019, which coincidentally is the day Petitioner signed and mailed his
Petition to this Court, his attorney advised him in a phone call that he provided him with
incorrect advice about the time period to file a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus and that
he should “immediately file” a petition with the federal court. See ECF No. 9, pp.23-24. Even if
this were the true reason for Petitioner’s untimely filing of his Petition, courts have “consistently
rejected the argument that an attorney’s mistake in determining the date a habeas petition is due
constitutes extraordinary circumstances for purposes of equitable tolling.” Johnson v. Hendriks,
314 F.3d 159, 163 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing cases and ultimately finding that attorney’s erroneous
written advice regarding date of the AEDPA deadline did not constitute extraordinary
circumstances warranting equitable tolling, even though petitioner relied on counsel’s advice);
see also Fahv v. Horn. 240 F.3d 239, 244 (3d Cir. 2001) (“In non-capital cases, attorney error,
miscalculation, inadequate research, or other mistakes have not been found to rise to the
10
Case 2:19-cv-00744-NR-LPL Document 23 Filed 07/20/21 Page 11 of 14
‘extraordinary’ circumstances required for equitable tolling”). Accordingly, such a situation
would not entitle Petitioner to equitable tolling anyway.
As Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating extraordinary circumstances
sufficient to warrant equitable tolling, it is not necessary to determine whether he has also
demonstrated that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, as a showing of both is required
before equitable tolling will be granted. Thus, it is recommended that the Petition be dismissed
as untimely.
2. Alternatively, the Petition should be denied.
Alternatively, even if the Petition is not found to be untimely, it is recommended that the
Petition be denied because Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief on his claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel. As previously noted, Petitioner raises four claims of ineffective assistance
of counsel in his Petition, including: (1) failing to attend the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board
Hearing and advise him of his right to remain silent during such assessment, at which Petitioner
incriminated himself by confessing to other criminal acts for which he was later charged, (2)
failing to obtain mental health evaluation reports and/or a psychiatric evaluation to obtain a more
favorable sentence for Petitioner despite being aware that he had previously received psychiatric
treatment; (3) failing to obtain a psychiatric evaluation of Petitioner because, according to
Petitioner, he has impulse control disorder which caused him to enter an involuntary guilty plea;
and (4) failing to “suppress” a letter between the judge and an independent citizen. (ECF No. 4.)
As to Petitioner’s first claim of ineffective assistance regarding his attorney’s failure to
attend Petitioner’s Sexual Offenders Assessment Board Hearing and advise him of his right to
remain silent during such assessment, the Superior Court determined that such claim was not
cognizable under the PCRA pursuant to Commonwealth v. Masker, 34 A.3d 841 (Pa. Super.
11
Case 2:19-cv-00744-NR-LPL Document 23 Filed 07/20/21 Page 12 of 14
2011). See ECF No. 13-5, pp.7-8. Since the Superior Court did not adjudicate this claim on the
merits because it determined that it was not cognizable, AEDPA’s standard of review found in
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) does not apply to this Court’s review of it and the Court reviews the claim
de novo. See, e.g., Appel v. Horn. 250 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2001). However, even under a de
novo standard of review, the undersigned finds that the claim would be subject to denial for the
same persuasive reasons the PCRA court gave when it denied this claim in its thorough Opinion
and Order dated December 12, 2017.
As to Petitioner’s second and third claims of ineffective assistance, the Superior Court
found that Petitioner had not established that he was prejudiced by his attorney’s failure to obtain
:>
mental health records and a psychiatric evaluation of Petitioner prior to entering his plea because
Petitioner did not present any evidence to the PCRA court to substantiate his claims that he
suffers from an impulse control disorder or any other mental health disorder. The undersigned
finds that the Superior Court’s decision clearly withstands AEDPA review as it is neither
“contrary to” or an “unreasonable application of’ Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668
(1984), nor it is an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in
the state court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Finally, as to Petitioner’s fourth claim of ineffective assistance, that his attorney was
ineffective for failing to “suppress” a letter sent to the judge from a concerned citizen, this claim
is unexhausted because Petitioner did not pursue it on appeal after it was denied by the PCRA
court and it is procedurally defaulted because he would be barred from going back and doing so
now. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); see also Rolan v. Coleman, 680 F.3d 311, 317 (3d Cir. 2012)
(“Procedural default occurs when a claim has not been fairly presented to the state courts (i.e., is
unexhausted) and there are no additional state remedies available to pursue ... or, when an issue
12
Case 2:19-cv-00744-NR-LPL Document 23 Filed 07/20/21 Page 13 of 14
is properly asserted in the state system but not addressed on the merits because of an independent
and adequate state procedural rule ....”) (internal citations omitted). Additionally, Petitioner
has demonstrated neither cause and prejudice, nor a fundamental miscarriage of justice, which
would allow this Court to consider the merits of Petitioner’s procedurally defaulted claim. See
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991).
For these reasons, the Petition should be denied in the event that the Court determines
that it is not subject to dismissal as untimely.
C. Certificate of Appealability
AEDPA codified standards governing the issuance of a certificate of appealability for
•*
appellate review of a district court’s disposition of a habeas petition. As provided for in 28
U.S.C. § 2253, “[a] certificate of appealability may issue ... only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A
petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the
district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues
presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 327 (2003) (citing Slack v. McDaniel. 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). “When the district
court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying
constitutional claim, a [certificate of appealability] should issue when the prisoner shows, at
least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the
denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack. 529 U.S. at 484. Petitioner has not
made the requisite showing in these circumstances. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability
should be denied.
13
Case 2:19-cv-00744-NR-LPL Document 23 Filed 07/20/21 Page 14 of 14
III.
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 4) filed by Petitioner Ethan Andrew Hannold be dismissed as
untimely or, in the alternative, be denied. It is also recommended that a certificate of
appealability be denied.
In accordance with the applicable provisions of the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(l)(B)&(C), and Rule 72.D.2 of the Local Rules of Court, Petitioner shall have fourteen
(14) days from the date of the service of this report and recommendation to file written
objections thereto. Petitioner’s failure to file timely objections will constitute a waiver of his
appellate rights.
Dated: July 20,2021.
Lisa Pupo Lenihan
United States Magistrate Judge
Cc:
Ethan Andrew Hannold
ND7966
SCI Rockview
Box A
1 Rockview Place
Bellefonte, PA 16823
Counsel of Record
(via CMJECF electronic mail)
14
Integrated Offender Case Management System
11/17/202312:51:22
PM
Monthly Account Statement - Individual
From Date:
11/17/2022
To Date:
11/17/2023
Location
ALBION
Case ID
Offender Name
A-A-1021-02
ND7966
HANNOLD, ETHAN
Batch#
Txn Date
Txn Description
ROC-048963
11/17/2022
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 11/17/2022)
-14.88
21.67
ROC-049007
11/22/2022
34 - Cable
-17.00
4.67
ROC-049015
11/23/2022
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 11/23/2022)
-3.24
1.43
ROC-049027
11/28/2022
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.63
0.80
ROC-049027
11/28/2022
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.63
0.17
ROC-049027
11/28/2022
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.63
-0.46
ROC-049091
12/05/2022
10 - Maintenance Payroll (GRP 1 - 1st - End of Month)
+73.92
73.46
54.98
Housing
Txn Amount($)
Balance After
Transaction}?)
ROC-049091
12/05/2022
50-Act84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
-18.48
ROC-049108
12/07/2022
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.63
54.35
ROC-049125
12/08/2022
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 12/08/2022)
-27.25
27.10
ROC-049172
12/14/2022
37 - Postage (JOHN HANNOLD 12/12/22)
-5.40
21.70
ROC-049172
12/14/2022
37 - Postage (JOHN HANNOLD 12/12/22)
-6.10
15.60
ROC-049173
12/14/2022
37-Postage (6X$.36)
-2.34
13.26
ROC-049185
12/15/2022
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-4.62
8.64
ROC-049186
12/15/2022
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 12/15/2022)
-8.08
0.56
ROC-049213
12/20/2022
37 - Postage (HANNOLD 12/16/22)
-1.44
-0.88
ROC-049213
12/20/2022
37- Postage (BILL EISENHUTH 12/16/22)
-0.63
-1.51
ROC-049213
12/20/2022
37 - Postage (JOHN HANNOLD 12/16/22)
-1.44
-2.95
ROC-049232
12/22/2022
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-1.44
-4.39
ROC-049241
12/22/2022
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.96
-5.35
ROC-049250
12/25/2022
13 - Personal Gifts (BLY
+25.00
19.65
ROC-049250
12/25/2022
50-Act84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
, VICKI)
, JOHN)
-6.25
13.40
+100.00
113.40
ROC-049250
12/25/2022
13 - Personal Gifts (HANNOLD
ROC-049250
12/25/2022
50-Act84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
-25.00
88.40
ROC-049272
12/28/2022
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 12/28/2022)
-19.43
68.97
ROC-049280
12/29/2022
34 - Cable
-17.00
51.97
ROC-049309
01/04/2023
10 - Maintenance Payroll (GRP 1 - 1st - End of Month)
+84.00
135.97
ROC-049309
01/04/2023
50 - Act 84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
-21.00
114.97
ROC-049335
01/05/2023
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 01/05/2023)
-33.10
81.87
ROC-049395
01/12/2023
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 01/12/2023)
-35.28
46.59
ROC-049450
01/19/2023
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 01/19/2023)
-18.67
27.92
ROC-049463
01/23/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-1.44
26.48
ROC-049482
01/25/2023
37 - Postage (DENNY WEAVER 1/23/23)
-0.84
25.64
ROC-049482
01/25/2023
37 - Postage (US COURT OF APPEALS 1/23/23)
-1.74
23.90
ROC-049497
01/26/2023
34 - Cable
-17.00
6.90
Page 1 of 6
Integrated Offender Case Management System
11/17/202312:51:22
PM
Monthly Account Statement - Individual
From Date:
Housing
A-A-1021-02
Case ID
ND7966
11/17/2022
To Date:
11/17/2023
Location
Offender Name
HANNOLD,ETHAN
ALBION
IfaBflliiltUligjEfl
liEiEmaa/ana?
’utEBESSaSQ®)
ROC-049513
01/30/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.24
6.66
ROC-049513
01/30/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.24
6.42
ROC-049513
01/30/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.24
6.18
ROC-049540
02/01/2023
13 - Personal Gifts (HANNOLD
+100.00
106.18
ROC-049540
02/01/2023
50-Act84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
-25.00
81.18
ROC-049551
02/02/2023
13 - Personal Gifts (GRIEBEL
+25.00
106.18
ROC-049551
02/02/2023
50-Act84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
-6.25
99.93
ROC-049563
02/02/2023
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 02/02/2023)
-56.15
43.78
ROC-049578
02/06/2023
10 - Maintenance Payroll (GRP 1 - 1st - End of Month)
+80.00
123.78
ROC-049578
02/06/2023
50-Act84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
-20.00
103.78
ROC-049576
02/06/2023
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY CR FOR 02/06/2023)
+3.23
107.01
ROC-049607
02/09/2023
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 02/09/2023)
-31.46
75.55
ROC-049666
02/16/2023
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 02/16/2023)
-2.92
72.63
ROC-049669
02/17/2023
36 - Library Copies (COPIES 2/9/23)
-1.20
71.43
ROC-049709
02/23/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-3.66
67.77
ROC-049709
02/23/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-3.66
64.11
61.65
, JOHN)
.JOHN)
ROC-049709
02/23/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-2.46
ROC-049709
02/23/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-2.46
59.19
ROC-049709
02/23/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-2.46
56.73
ROC-049719
02/23/2023
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 02/23/2023)
-15.45
41.28
ROC-049720
02/23/2023
34 - Cable
-17.00
24.28
-22.40
1.88
+25.00
26.88
-6.25
20.63
ROC-049726
02/24/2023
36 - Library Copies (2/16/23)
ROC-049737
02/26/2023
13 - Personal Gifts (GRIEBEL
ROC-049737
02/26/2023
50 - Act 84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
ROC-049776
03/01/2023
10 - Maintenance Payroll (GRP 1 - 1st - End of Month)
+80.00
100.63
ROC-049776
03/01/2023
50 - Act 84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
-20.00
80.63
ROC-049794
03/02/2023
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 03/02/2023)
-17.98
62.65
ROC-049814
03/06/2023
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY CR FOR 03/06/2023)
+0.80
63.45
ROC-049840
03/09/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.66
62.79
ROC-049840
03/09/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.66
62.13
ROC-049846
03/09/2023
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 03/09/2023)
-18.19
43.94
ROC-049894
03/16/2023
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 03/16/2023)
-14.93
29.01
15.91
, JOHN)
ROC-049958
03/23/2023
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 03/23/2023)
-13.10
ROC-049960
03/24/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-1.26
14.65
ROC-049976
03/27/2023
13 - Personal Gifts (HANNOLD
+100.00
114.65
ROC-049976
03/27/2023
50-Act84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
-25.00
89.65
, JOHN)
Page 2 of 6
Integrated Offender Case Management System
11/17/2023 12:51:22
PM
Monthly Account Statement - Individual
From Date:
11/17/2022
Housing
Case ID
A-A-1021-02
ND7966
Offender Name
HANNOLD,ETHAN
Batch#
Txn Date
Txn Description
ROC-050027
03/30/2023
ROC-050029
03/30/2023
ROC-050070
To Date:
11/17/2023
Location
ALBION
Txn Amount{$)
Balance After
Transaction/S)
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 03/30/2023)
-21.79
67.86
34 - Cable
-17.00
50.86
04/05/2023
10 - Maintenance Payroll (GRP 1 - 1st - End of Month)
+88.00
138.86
ROC-050070
04/05/2023
50 - Act 84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
-22.00
116.86
ROC-050080
04/06/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-1.50
115.36
113.86
ROC-050080
04/06/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-1.50
ROC-050085
04/06/2023
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 04/06/2023)
-22.71
91.15
ROC-050131
04/12/2023
31 - Outside Purchase (BUCK ART MATERIALS)
-51.20
39.95
ROC-050148
04/13/2023
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 04/13/2023)
-20.54
19.41
ROC-050207
04/20/2023
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 04/20/2023)
, JOHN)
-17.36
2.05
+100.00
102.05
ROC-050227
04/23/2023
13 - Personal Gifts (HANNOLD
ROC-050227
04/23/2023
50-Act84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
-25.00
77.05
ROC-050248
04/25/2023
37 - Postage (RHONDA HANNOLD 4/21/23)
-0.66
76.39
ROC-050265
04/26/2023
36 - Library Copies (COPIES 4/20/23)
-3.50
72.89
ROC-050265
04/26/2023
36 - Library Copies (COPIES 4/21/23)
-4.00
68.89
42.64
ROC-050290
04/27/2023
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 04/27/2023)
-26.25
ROC-050291
04/27/2023
34 - Cable
-17.00
25.64
ROC-050328
05/02/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-9.65
15.99
ROC-050330
05/02/2023
10 - Maintenance Payroll (GRP 1 - 1st - End of Month)
+76.00
91.99
ROC-050330
05/02/2023
50-Act84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
, JENNY)
-19.00
72.99
+20.00
92.99
ROC-050336
05/03/2023
13-Personal Gifts (HODGE
ROC-050336
05/03/2023
50 - Act 84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
-5.00
87.99
ROC-050350
05/04/2023
37 - Postage (FLEMING 2 @ $1.50 5/2/23)
-3.00
84.99
ROC-050359
05/04/2023
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 05/04/2023)
-5.41
79.58
ROC-050411
05/11/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-1.50
78.08
ROC-050414
05/11/2023
32 - Commissary (ROC COMMISSARY FOR 05/11/2023)
-13.98
64.10
ROC-050442
05/15/2023
10 - Maintenance Payroll (GRP 1 - 1st - End of Month)
+44.00
108.10
ROC-050442
05/15/2023
50-Act84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
-11.00
97.10
05/17/2023
37 - Postage (POSTAGE- SHIPPING)
-92.35
4.75
ROC-050467
05/18/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-10.75
-6.00
ROC-050477
05/19/2023
37 - Postage (3 BOXES TO SCI-ALBION 5/17/23)
-92.35
-98.35
05/19/2023
37 - Postage (Release Escrow)
+92.35
-6.00
05/19/2023
Transfer Out (ROCKVIEW)
-6.00
05/19/2023
Transfer In (ALBION)
-6.00
ALB-063404
05/20/2023
13 - Personal Gifts (HANNOLD
ALB-063404
05/20/2023
50-Act84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
JOHN)
+100.00
94.00
-25.00
69.00
Page 3 of 6
Integrated Offender Case Management System
11/17/202312:51:22
PM
Monthly Account Statement - Individual
From Date:
11/17/2022
Housing
Case ID
Offender Name
VA-1021-02
ND7966
HANNOLD,ETHAN
Batch#
Txn Date
Txn Description
ALB-063465
05/25/2023
ALB-063476
To Date:
11/17/2023
Location
ALBION
Txn Amount{$)
Balance After
Transaction($)
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 05/25/2023)
-36.27
32.73
05/25/2023
34 - Cable
-17.00
15.73
ALB-063533
06/01/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 06/01/2023)
-14.79
0.94
ALB-063638
06/08/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 06/08/2023)
-0.80
0.14
+100.00
100.14
ALB-063640
06/09/2023
13 - Personal Gifts (HANNOLD
ALB-063640
06/09/2023
50-Act84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
-25.00
75.14
ALB-063641
06/09/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.24
74.90
ALB-063641
06/09/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.24
74.66
ALB-063641
06/09/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.24
74.42
ALB-063666
06/12/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-2.22
72.20
ALB-063672
06/12/2023
10 - Maintenance Payroll (GRP 2 - 7th -6th)
+48.75
120.95
ALB-063672
06/12/2023
50 - Act 84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
-12.19
108.76
ALB-063716
06/15/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-1.24
107.52
ALB-063716
06/15/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-1.48
106.04
ALB-063714
06/15/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 06/15/2023)
-70.52
35.52
ALB-063766
06/21/2023
10 - Maintenance Payroll (GRP 3 - 14th -13th)
+0.86
36.38
ALB-063766
06/21/2023
50-Act84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
-0.22
36.16
ALB-063782
06/22/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 06/22/2023)
-18.73
17.43
ALB-063840
06/28/2023
13 - Personal Gifts (HANNOLD
, JOHN)
+100.00
117.43
ALB-063840
06/28/2023
50 - Act 84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
-25.00
92.43
ALB-063850
06/29/2023
13 - Personal Gifts (HANNOLD
, JOHN)
+50.00
142.43
ALB-063850
06/29/2023
50 - Act 84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
-12.50
129.93
ALB-063855
06/29/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 06/29/2023)
-45.53
84.40
ALB-063865
06/29/2023
34 - Cable
-17.00
67.40
ALB-063904
07/05/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.48
66.92
ALB-063926
07/06/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 07/06/2023)
-30.41
36.51
ALB-063927
07/06/2023
27 - Misc/Other (Volleyball Contest Winners)
+7.50
44.01
ALB-064011
07/13/2023
10 - Maintenance Payroll (GRP 2 - 7th -6th)
+15.00
59.01
ALB-064011
07/13/2023
50-Act84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
-3.75
55.26
ALB-064015
07/13/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 07/13/2023)
-21.87
33.39
ALB-064063
07/19/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-1.83
31.56
ALB-064087
07/20/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 07/20/2023)
-18.67
12.89
ALB-064088
07/20/2023
10 - Maintenance Payroll (GRP 3 - 14th -13th)
+15.48
28.37
ALB-064088
07/20/2023
50-Act84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
-3.87
24.50
ALB-064155
07/27/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 07/27/2023)
-5.97
18.53
ALB-064169
07/27/2023
34 - Cable
-17.00
1.53
, JOHN)
Page 4 of 6
Integrated Offender Case Management System
11/17/2023 12:51:22
PM
Monthly Account Statement - Individual
From Date:
11/17/2022
Housing
A-A-1021-02
Case ID
ND7966
Offender Name
HANNOLD,ETHAN
Batch#
Txn Date
Txn Description
To Date:
11/17/2023
Location
ALBION
Balance After
Transaction(S)
ALB-064221
08/02/2023
13 - Personal Gifts (HANNOLD
+100.00
101.53
ALB-064221
08/02/2023
50-Act84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
-25.00
76.53
ALB-064241
08/03/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 08/03/2023)
-19.83
56.70
ALB-064247
08/04/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.24
56.46
ALB-064247
08/04/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-3.03
53.43
ALB-064271
08/07/2023
10 - Maintenance Payroll (GRP 1 - 1st - End of Month)
+6.00
59.43
ALB-064271
08/07/2023
50 - Act 84 (CP-16-CR-0000170-2013)
-1.50
57.93
ALB-064310
08/10/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 08/10/2023)
-11.39
46.54
ALB-064346
08/14/2023
44 - Inmate Organization (2023 ANIVO Condiment Fundraiser)
-23.00
23.54
ALB-064351
08/15/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.40
23.14
ALB-064382
08/17/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 08/17/2023)
-4.92
18.22
ALB-064401
08/18/2023
10 - Maintenance Payroll (GRP 3 - 14th -13th)
+8.60
26.82
ALB-064401
08/18/2023
50-Act84 (CP-61-CR-0000035-2010)
-1.72
25.10
ALB-064465
08/24/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 08/24/2023)
-6.28
18.82
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.87
17.95
0.95
ALB-064489
08/28/2023
, JOHN)
Txn Amount($)
ALB-064517
08/29/2023
34 - Cable
-17.00
ALB-064538
08/31/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 08/31/2023)
-0.95
0.00
ALB-064587
09/07/2023
13 - Personal Gifts (HANNOLD
+25.00
25.00
ALB-064587
09/07/2023
50-Act84 (CP-61-CR-0000035-2010)
-5.00
20.00
ALB-064593
09/07/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 09/07/2023)
-10.26
9.74
+84.00
93.74
, JOHN)
ALB-064603
09/08/2023
10 - Maintenance Payroll (GRP 1 - 1st - End of Month)
ALB-064603
09/08/2023
50 - Act 84 (CP-61 -CR-0000035-2010)
-16.80
76.94
ALB-064608
09/08/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.24
76.70
ALB-064608
09/08/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.40
76.30
ALB-064608
09/08/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-2.79
73.51
73.11
ALB-064622
09/11/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.40
ALB-064634
09/12/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.40
72.71
ALB-064677
09/14/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 09/14/2023)
-38.65
34.06
ALB-064731
09/20/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-1.59
32.47
ALB-064748
09/21/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 09/21/2023)
-11.08
21.39
ALB-064798
09/26/2023
13 - Personal Gifts (HANNOLD
+100.00
121.39
ALB-064798
09/26/2023
50-Act84 (CP-61-CR-0000035-2010)
-20.00
101.39
ALB-064834
09/28/2023
36 - Printed Materials (Top Notch Inmate Services)
-6.00
95.39
ALB-064828
09/28/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 09/28/2023)
-59.53
35.86
ALB-064838
09/28/2023
34 - Cable
-17.00
18.86
ALB-064851
09/29/2023
27 - Misc/Other (Softball Winners l/J Olympics)
+7.50
26.36
, JOHN)
Page 5 of 6
Integrated Offender Case Management System
11/17/202312:51:22
PM
Monthly Account Statement - Individual
From Date:
Housing
VA-1021-02
Case ID
ND7966
11/17/2022
To Date:
11/17/2023
Offender Name
Location
HANNOLD,ETHAN
ALBION
'utosas
(Manns
ALB-064917
10/05/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 10/05/2023)
-25.72
0.64
ALB-064937
10/06/2023
10 - Maintenance Payroll (GRP 1 - 1st - End of Month)
+66.50
67.14
ALB-064937
10/06/2023
50-Act84 (CP-61-CR-0000035-2010)
-13.30
53.84
ALB-064964
10/11/2023
27 - Misc/Other (Field Day Winners)
+5.00
58.84
ALB-064978
10/12/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 10/12/2023)
-20.03
38.81
ALB-065001
10/16/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.64
38.17
10/17/2023
Transfer Out (ALBION)
38.17
10/17/2023
Transfer In (ROCKVIEW)
38.17
10/17/2023
27 - Misc/Other (VENDA CARD REFUND)
10/23/2023
Transfer Out (ROCKVIEW)
43.17
10/23/2023
Transfer In (ALBION)
43.17
ALB-065071
10/23/2023
27 - Misc/Other (Flu Vaccine Incentive)
+5.00
48.17
ALB-065078
10/23/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.40
47.77
ALB-065110
10/26/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 10/26/2023)
-22.44
25.33
ALB-065112
10/26/2023
34 - Cable
-17.00
8.33
ALB-065113
10/27/2023
13 - Personal Gifts (HANNOLD
+150.00
158.33
ALB-065113
10/27/2023
50 - Act 84 (CP-61-CR-0000035-2010)
-30.00
128.33
128.09
ROC-051796
43.17
+5.00
, JOHN)
ALB-065148
10/30/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.24
ALB-065163
10/31/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY CR FOR 10/31/2023)
+1.13
129.22
ALB-065173
11/01/2023
27 - Misc/Other (ANIVO REFUND)
+1.00
130.22
ALB-065187
11/02/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 11/02/2023)
-29.71
100.51
ALB-065189
11/02/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-1.83
98.68
ALB-065223
11/07/2023
34 - Cable (Ref-Cable-2 OOS CH-10/1 to 10/22/23)
+0.44
99.12
ALB-065228
11/07/2023
10 - Maintenance Payroll (GRP 1 - 1st - End of Month)
+70.00
169.12
ALB-065228
11/07/2023
50-Act84 (CP-61-CR-0000035-2010)
-14.00
155.12
ALB-065242
11/08/2023
37 - Postage (First Class Mail)
-0.24
154.88
ALB-065252
11/09/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 11/09/2023)
-8.85
146.03
ALB-065251
11/09/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY CR FOR 11/09/2023)
+2.27
148.30
143.30
123.86
ALB-065260
11/09/2023
41 - Medical Co-Pay (Medical Co-Pay -11/3/23)
-5.00
ALB-065308
11/15/2023
32 - Commissary (ALB COMMISSARY FOR 11/15/2023)
-19.44
feftrirarfy
<s(?Ei;i 7,1 J7/2023P 2T5:172 21 (f©
Current Balance
123.86
Escrow Balance
o.oo
Available Balance
123.86
PROCESSED-lA^I^
NUV 1 7 2023
fais..
8NMATE-ACCOUNTS
Page 6 of 6
....J
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.