Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Michael Christopher Romig, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania

..25-7587

»xt

R.

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

APR 1 0 2026

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

MICHAEL C. ROMIG, pro se

(Your Name)

PETITIONER

vs.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

— RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

Supreme Court denied discretionary review 324 MAL 2025

State Court of Appeals

______ Superior Court of Pennsylvania 997 MPA 2.024

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Michael C. Romig QK-5374 pro se

(Your Name)

S.C.I. Frackville

________ 1111 Altamont Blvd._______

(Address)

Frackville, Pennsylvania 17931

(City, State, Zip Code)

__________ N/A____________

(Phone Number)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

1. ) Was Petitioner denied meaningful effective assistance of

Court appointed counsel (preliminary hearing, trial, direct appeal,

and PCPA) to get and maintain conviction?

Suggested Answer: YES

2. ) Is effective assistance of counsel an ongoing problem in

the state of Pennsylvania, of which needs addressed, to allow

litigants a fair trial and due process?

Suggested Answer: YES

3. ) Did Petitioner exercise due diligence according to the

record to attempt to rectify counsels deficiency with respect to

the Bradly approach?

Suggested Answer: YES

5.) Did the Superior Court error, in that newly discovered

facts exception also fails, where the Trial Court failed to appoint

new counsel when the Superior Court remanded to them on stewardship

claim of PCRA counsel (Scoot N. Pletcher) by way of November 30, 2020

order (see Docket Entry @1168 MDA 2020) ?

Suggested Answer: YES

LIST OF PARTIES

[X] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

[ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this

petition is as follows:

Petitioner:

Respondents:

Michael C. Romig OK-6374

For the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

S.C.I. Frackville

Torquato, Christopher Robert

1111 Altamont Blvd.

Mifflin County District Attorney's Office

Frackville, Pennsylvania 17931

Mifflin County Da's Office

20 North Wayne Street

Lewistown, Pennsylvania 17044

Phone: (717) 248-9800

RELATED CASES

All cases have been previously litigated and disposed

- Prelim Hearing, Magisterial District Judge Jonathan W. Reed 58-3-02

(-'<Transcipts were made of hearing, 997 MDA 2024 refused to accept*)

-Trial Court CP-44-CR-0000560-2016

-Direct Appeal Superior Court Com. v. Romig,203 A.3d 322. 2018 Pa. Super

Unpub LEXIS 4697 2018 WL6598400 (Dec. 17, 2018) No. 400 MDA 2018

-Direct Appeal Supreme Court Com. v. Romig, 654 Pa. 423, 215 A.3d 561, 2019

Pa. LEXIS 3362 2019 V7L 2510894 (June 18, 2019) No. 29 MAL 2019

- Trial Court First PCRA CP-44-CR-00560-2016

PCRA Superior Com. v. Romig,258 A.3d 552, 2021 Pa. Super. Unpub LEXIS 1692

2021 WL 2624701 (June 25, 2021) No. 1168 MDA 2020

-PCRA. Supreme Com. v. Romig, 284 A.3d 115: 2022 Pa. LEXIS 12302022

Pa. LEXIS 1230 (August 23, 2022) No. 100 MAL 2022

- Federal Habeas Corpus Romig v. Brittain, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212576

(M.D. Pa. , November 29, 2023)

No. 4;22-cv-01628

- Second PCRA Superior Court Com. v. Romig No. 997 MDA 2024

- Second PCRA Supreme Court Com. v. Romig No.324 MAL 2025

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

page number

-Commonwealth v. Bradly,261 A.3d 381, 404 n.18 (Pa. 2021)

-Commonwealth v. Ronald K. Mayo, 272 Pa. Super. 115; 414 A.2d

696; 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3297 ....................

8

-Commonwealth'v. Johnston, 438 Pa. 485; 263 A.2d 376; 1970

Pa. LEXIS 812; 41 a.l.r.3d 576............................ 8

STATUTES AND RULES

^Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved.... 3

OTHER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

JURISDICTION

-|

............................................

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

CONCLUSION

..............................................

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

- Decision of State Court of Appeals (Superior No. 997 MDA 2024) A-l to A-&

APPENDIX B

- Decision of State Trial Court CP-44-CR-560-2016 Mifflin County

Court of Common Pleas June 13th 2024

APPENDIX C

- Decision of State Trial Court April 22nd 2024 (ref.in B)

C-l to C-5

APPENDIX D

- Decision of State Trial Court June 13th 2024 (Denied recusal)

D-l to D-2

APPENDIX E

-Decision of State Supreme Court Denying ReviewNo. 324 MAL 2025

January 21st 2026

Bi­

APPENDIX F

- Order of the Superior Court August 15th 2024 Denying the filing

p-i

of preliminary Hearing Transcipt

- December 2nd 2024 letter to Superior Court requesting filing of

transcriot as trial counsel was at fault for failing to file it.

F-2

- November 18th 2017 Attorney Correspondence from Trial Counsel

Michael S. Gingerich.

F-3

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix

the petition and is

[ ] reported at; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

the petition and is

[ ] reported at

or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

[x] For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix —&— to the petition and is

[X] reported at Superior Court J-S16O27-25 No. 997 MPA 2024 orj

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the

Superior ?.

court

appears at Appendix —&

to the petition and is

[X| reported at

J-S16027-25 No. 997 MPA 2024. or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

to

to

JURISDICTION

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

was

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

Appeals on the following date:

, and a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including------------------------- (date) on(date)

in Application No. A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

[X] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was 1/21/2026

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix E

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

---------------------------, and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including(date) on(date) in

Application No. A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

2.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

- U.S. Constitution Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy

the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the

state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,

which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and

to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be

confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory

process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance

of counsel for his defense.

- U.S. Constitution Amendment XIV

All persons born or naturalized in the United States,

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United

States and of the state wherein they reside.

No State shall make

or enforce any lav/ which shall abridge the privileges or

immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state

deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process

of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the

equal protection of the laws•

3.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant was arrested August 3, 2016 stemming from an alleged

assault inside Appellant's home on the evening of August 2, 2016.

The arrest was a result of a warrant issued by MDJ Jonathan W. Reed

(Issuing Authority).

Appellant was detained by State Police, where

MDJ Jonathan W. Reed set bail at preliminary arraignment $150,000.00.

A preliminary hearing was held September 14, 2016 (trans, provided

by appellant) before MDJ Jonathan W. Reed (Final Issuing Authority).

April 18, 2017 nominal bail was granted by Judge Aaron Gingrich and

posted same day, where Appellant was released to State Parole for

violations as a result of charges and moved to S.C.I. Huntingdon.

Appellant reached his maximum expiration sentence of parole and was

released on or about June 17, 2017.

Appellant appeared on his own

recognizance for a hearing on his motion to Suppress Physical

Evidence & to Compel Funds for Expert Witness/Services, where both

were denied at a July 10, 2017, where Appellant also had Jury

Appellant also appeared for July 18, 2017

Selection that same day.

Jury Trial, after being convicted Judge David W. Barron reimposed

bail to $150,000.00, and Appellant was again taken into custody.

Sentencing was defered until September 14, 2017, where Appellant

wajs sentenced to 9% to 30 years imprisonment in a state correctional

facility.

Post Sentence motions were filed (by trial counsel

Michael S. Gingerich) September 25, 2017 and argued by retained

counsel Christian A. Kerstetter at a hearing January

trial counsel withdrew.

4, 2018, after

Post Sentence Motion was denied in

entirety February 5, 2018.

Christian A. Kerstetter withdrew as Appellant was unable to continue

to pay him.

The trial court apponited Justin Paul Miller to file

direct appeal, where this Court affirmed judgment of sentence @ No.

400 MDA 2018 (J-S69011-18) December 17, 2018.

Petition for

Allowance of Appeal was denied by the Supreme Court June 18, 2019.

Appellant filed a pro se first PCRA September 17, 2019, trial court

appointed Scott N. Pletcher who filed Amended PCRA December 30, 2019,

where it was later briefed, a hearing was held, again later the trial

denied the same August 21, 2020.

A pro se Notice of Appeal was filed

with this Court September 11, 2020.

This Court ultimately affirmed

again on June 25, 2021 (No. 1168 MDA 2020).

Allowance of Appeal was

again denied by the Supreme Court August 23, 2022 (No. 100 MAL 20.22).

Appellant proceeded pro se and filed a 2254 habeas corpus in the

United States District Court (Middle District) No. 4:22-cv-01628,

where District Court denied the Petition of Habeas Corpus from a

State Conviction.

Appellant then filed a motion to alter judgment

(59e), of which was denied December 22, 2023.

Appellant then

mistakenly filed Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States,

where they directed Appellant to first appeal to the United States

Court of Appeals.

This

28 USC 1254.

Second PCRA was filed with the trial court March 28, 2024.

court denied/dismissed the PCRA.

2025 No.997 MDA 2024.

The trial

Superior Court affirmed on May 23,

The Supreme Court denied Petition for

Allowance of Appeal January 21, 2026. This writ of certiorari follows.

5.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

Through out theses proceedings I have been shuffled through

multiple court appointed attorney's.

All of which have been

ineffective by failing to object.to the lack of necessary medical

expert testimony (outlined in preliminary hearing transcript), failed

to object to jury instructions, failed to properly question victim

and witnesses and move for impeachment, direct appeal counsel failed

to properly brief justification jury instructions, PCRA counsel

failed to zealously review all counsels ineffectiveness.

This

Petitioner even raised counsels ineffectiveness on PCRA appeal

properly (Superior Court No. 1168 MDA 2020, remand to trial court

November 30, 2020 order, and Supreme Court No. 276 MT 2021/92 MM 2021

December 28;h2021 order also remanding to the trial court) where

counsel was kept on dispite Petitioner clear disatifaction in his

actions.

This satisfied the standards of Commonwealth v. Bradley,

261 A.3d. 381, 404 n.18 (Pa. 2021), that dispite Petitioner's clear

outline of this in his brief the Superior Court failed to acknowledge

this fact in it s May 23, 2025 opinion.

All of court appointed

counsel's actions/inactions waived Appellant's rights or maintained

a conviction that would not have occured with skilled counsel

otherwise.

The Superior Court would not allow me to add transcripts

from Preliminary Hearing that was in fact transcribed on 9-14-2016

(see appendix F-l to F-3).

Preliminary hearing counsel who was

also trial counsel told me that the transcipt were part of the record

when they were not.

6.

This information if used at trial and dr;:direetpappeal would have

changed the outcome of the case.

As the part of the transcript on

page 35 an objection was given by Counsel Michael Gingerich

regarding medical records that could hot be cross examined, where

the MDJ Jonathan W. Reed bound charges over to trial with instructions

that " as long as someone involved in preparing them would be present

at trial " for cross, of which did not take place and would have

significantly changed the outcome of trial and or appeal, but the

proper information was not availiable due to court / clerk

interference, as well as ineffective assistance of trial counsel

for failing to file a pretrial habeas corpus motion regarding the

same.

Further it is clear that this Petitioner dispite the Superior

Court's claim that Appellant did not challenge trial counsel's

effectiveness for failing to object to?the court's instruction

(foot note 1 Superior Court opinion 997 MDA 2024)., by the trial

Court's April 22, 2024 order at the fifth paragraph it is clear

that this Petitioner did challenge the trial counsel's effectiveness.

Lastly, this petition is timely as it was filed after the

district court's opinion where Petitioner learned that he was

procedurally defaulted, and that the same was at the hands of his

counsel's to include trial, direct appeal, and PCRA.

For theses reasons this Petitioner beleives that this Honorable

Court should remand this case to the PCRA court for a warranted

hearing on thesesmatters.

7.

Additionaly, State Courts below have continually used in their

opinions that this Petitioner "showed naked pictures of himself on

his cell phone to McTavish, when no evidence of this via picture was

presented at trial, where the State police had my cell phone and

returned it after the incident.

These allegations wereean attempt

to maintain the conviction and or circumvent a cause for the incident.

Further this was not brought up at the preliminary hearing or included

in any pretrial discovery, where it should not have been used at

trial.

The Superior Court refused to accept Petitioners supplement

to the record as it was not included in the Commonwealth's/Court's

certified record.(see appendix F-l to F-3)

Where trial counsel at

my request said it was linked to CR-560-2016 and is a part of the

record.

This is marginally reason this case made it this far, as

trial counsel was ineffective, as well as the Commonwealth/Court

used government interference by blocking.these documents from

appellate and trial court.

Thus showing violations to Petitioner's

Constitutional Rights, an unreliability in conviction, as well a

serious miscarriage of justice.

This Petitioner has continually attepted to challenge this

conviction for 9^ years with due diligence, because it is not right.

Petitioner believes it important to look at Commonwealth v.

Ronald K. Mayo, 272 Pa. Super. 115; 414 A.2d 696; 1979 Pa. Super.

LEXIS 3297, as well as Commonwealth v. Johnston, 438 Pa. 485;

263 A.2d 376; 1970 Pa. LEXIS 812;41 A.L.R.3d 576.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael C. Romig OK-6374

tw.»-

Apr,/ /O« -2.0Z&

and Wa-ifed '<

j 2.oz(^

9.