Nicholas Sexton v. Maine

The Petitioner filed a Pro se Second Petition for Post-Conviction Review ("2nd Pro se Petition ") in May 2022 (See 2nd Pro Se Petition of May 2022, Appdx. P.6) in the Penobscot County Superior Court (PCSC), Penobscot County, within the city of Bangor, Maine. This 'Petition' raised a single issue of ineffective assist­ ance of counsel ("l.A.C. "), in violation of United States Constitution, Amendment V, VI, and XIV, as well as Maine State Constitution, Article 1 § 6, in that the Petitioner's trial-counsel represented the Petitioner while operating under a non-waivable conflict-of-interest, as defined by Maine Rules of Professional Con­ duct (MRPC), Rule 1.7 (Concurrent Conflict of Interest/Current Client)(" Rule 1.7"), for having had formerly represented one of three victims of homicide to which the Petitioner had been charged with the death of in his criminal case. The PCSC Post-Conviction Review ("BCR") Judge initially accepted the 2nd pro se Petition base on the pre-requisite that the Petitioner make a showing that exceptions existed related to; a), time-statute of limitations (which the State abandoned at the January 24, 2025 'Hearing on PCR'Petition', see Appdx. P.92 L#19- 21), and; b). procedural waiver, and; c). the merits of the ground raised (see PCSC Order Assigning Post-ConvictionReview, Appdx. P. 42) The Petitioner obtained counsel and filed additional pleadings (See 'Brief Of Petitioner Showing Cause As To Why Ihe Procedural Bars On His PCR Claim Should Be Inapplicable In ThiS Case', Appdx. 48) A hearing was held on January 24, 2025, where the PCSC PCR Judge ruled on the State's Motion to Dismiss ("MID")(See State's MID at Appdx. P. 78), finding only that the Petitioner had 'waived' the PCR ground raised because the Petitioner had not complied with Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) 15 MRS §2128 (3), requiring that all PCR grounds be P.l raised in a single PCR action, and any grounds not so raised are deemed waived unless the Constitution of Maine, or the Constitution of the United States other­ wise requires, or unless the court determines that the ground could not reasonably have been raised in the earlier action. (15 MRS § 2128 (3)) The Petitioner's 2nd Pro se PCR Petition also presented several Federal and State exceptions to waiver, which Maine State law recognizes in 15 MRS §2128-A (Exceptions to waiver.), such as defenses to [procedural] defenses promulgated by decision of this Court, i.e. cause and prejudice [doctrine of Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977)], the voluntary, knowing & intelligent waiver of substantial Constitutional Rights, and plain error, none of which were considered by the State courts in their rulings. Question 1 Did the PCR Judge speculate to facts critical to the fair resolution of the issue of 'waiver', specifically that defense counsel provided notice of his former representation of the victim, via letter, which the PCR Judge speculated was transferred to 1st PCR counsel, and that because trial counsel must have forwarded the file with the letter, that the issue/ground could have been, but was not raised in the 1st PCR action, (See 'Hearing' of 1/24/2025, P.21, L#l-6, Appdx. P.106), and therefore the ground was deemed 'waived'? Question 2 Did the PCSC PCR Judge fail to consider State & Federal arguments, which presented exceptions to procedural waiver, cognizable on Federal Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2254, specifically: : a). "cause" and "prejudice" of Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 [1977],?£>) /.voluntary,^knowing & intelligent waiver, and; c). plain error? P.2 Question 3 Did the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, or Law Court, err as a matter of law and fact, when refusing to grant the Petitioner's request for a 'Certificate of Probable Cause', ruling that; "The Court has revieed the judgment entered in the trial court and fully considered the [Petitioner's] request for [a] cert­ ificate of probable cause.", and further adding that; "The Court has determined that no further hearing or action is necessary to a fair disposition of the matter." (See MSJC 'Order', denying certificate of probable cause, dated Oct­ ober 9, 2025, Appdx. P. 128 )(Reconsideration denied also at Appdx., P. 151) The Petitioner takes issue with the MSJC's acquiescence in the previous Questions 1 & 2, and incorporates all points of fact and law which militate in favor of this Court-of-last-resort, to GRANT this Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. P.3