Trending
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has rejected an argument by Efrain G. Hidalgo, a Native American, who has long contended his arrest more than 20 years ago as the leader of a heroin ring operating in Altoona violated treaties between the United States and the Mohawk Nation of the Six Nations Confederation.
The decision by a panel of the Superior Court was handed down Tuesday, upholding a ruling issued by Blair County President Judge Elizabeth A. Doyle just a year ago.
Although Hidalgo's argument was apparently untimely because it had not been filed within a year after his case became final in 2002, the former resident of Buffalo, N.Y., contended provisions of a Native American treaty cannot be time-barred -- absent a specific congressional enactment to the contrary.
According to Hidalgo's interpretation, officials from Pennsylvania in arresting him violated the treaty in which state authorities would be required to go through the Principal Chiefs of the Six Nations.
In her opinion, Doyle concluded that "there is a presumption that treaties do not create privately enforceable rights in the absence of express language to the contrary."
"International treaties establish rights and obligations between states, and generally not between states and individuals," she wrote.
She also stated that procedural rules of the state govern implementation of the treaty in the state.
Doyle continued, noting, "Here, there is no express language in either treaty (cited by Hidalgo) creating a private right in an individual to seek remedy for breach," she wrote, indicating that the (Stanwix and Harmar Treaties) do not bar United States authorities from prosecuting members of the Six Nations for crimes committed within the jurisdiction of the United States.
Hidalgo's status as an enrolled member of an Indian Nation does not exempt him from jurisdiction of state courts for crimes committed off the tribal land, the Blair County judge concluded.
A three-judge panel of the Superior Court that included Deborah A. Kunselman, Megan King and James G. Collins adopted Doyle's reasoning, stating, "Our review of pertinent case law and the certified record (of Hidalgo's case) supports (Doyle's) conclusions."
In his argument before the Superior Court, Hidalgo cited a case involving Native American property rights -- which are not time-barred -- but the appeals court stated, "Hidalgo cites no authority that extends this holding in a criminal or post-conviction context."
Hidalgo, 48, was arrested in 1999 as the leader of a heroin ring in the Altoona area.
The organization was broken up by police with the arrests of Hidalgo and two associates, Felix Ocasio and Kenneth Monture.
Monture also was a member of the Six Nations Reservation.
Hidalgo was eventually convicted by a Blair County jury on five counts of possession with intent to deliver, dealing in the proceeds of unlawful activities, criminal conspiracy and two counts of operating a corrupt organization.
Former Blair County Judge Norman D. Callan sentenced Hidalgo to a term of 60 to 150 years in prison.
Hidalgo is incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Albion, near Erie.
Hidalgo persistently over the years has challenged his lengthy sentence, but since 2000, his conviction and sentence have been upheld by the Blair County Court, the Pennsylvania Superior Court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the U.S. District Court.
The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals also rejected further appeal of the Hidalgo case.
In 2015, Hidalgo filed additional claims that include his immunity under two treaties and a claim that his right to a fair trial was violated because the prosecution withheld possible exculpatory evidence.
In the most recent action, Altoona attorney Thomas M. Dickey contended the defense had a right to review tapes of telephone calls between Hidalgo and a confidential police informant that occurred during the investigation into the Buffalo-based heroin ring.
The prosecution has refused to release those transcripts which, the defense claims, "may have contained exculpatory matter," or information favorable to the defense.
The defense maintains that the refusal to disclose the tapes was "meritless, willful and in bad faith."
The Superior Court explained that there are exceptions to the timeliness rules that prohibit appeals beyond the one-year mark from the initial close of a case.
One exception to the rule is a claim of "government interference."
In the Hidalgo case, the defense claims government interference occurred when the prosecution failed to produce the telephone intercepts between Hidalgo and the confidential informant.
The Superior Court opinion rejected the claim of governmental interference.
The opinion, written by Collins, emphasized Hidalgo knew about the recordings of the conversations since 2000 but it took him 15 years to bring the matter before the court.
"Our review of the record does not support Hidalgo's assertion that he was diligent and persistent in seeking the intercepts and any transcripts of them."
"In sum, Hidalgo's petition is subject to the time constraints of the Post Conviction Hearing Act," the Superior Court ruled.
While Hidalgo's long sentence has been upheld throughout the years, he filed a recent petition with the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons asking for a commutation that will allow him to seek parole.
No date has been set for a hearing before the board.