Opinion
J-S47014-17 No. 3468 EDA 2016
08-07-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. ADRIAN ALLEYNE Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order October 19, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0000906-2014 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MOULTON, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:
Adrian Alleyne appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, dismissing, without a hearing, his petition filed pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. After careful review, we affirm based on the well-reasoned PCRA court opinion.
Alleyne was charged with making false alarms to agencies of public safety, stalking, harassment, and disorderly conduct. These charges arose out of Alleyne's attempts to contact his ex-girlfriend, Jennifer Stallings. The evidence presented at trial showed that on November 15, 2013, Stallings received numerous calls from the payphone located outside the public library near Laurel House, the women's shelter where Stallings was living. The payphone was also used to make a false report of a fire at Laurel House, and Alleyne was seen lingering in the vicinity.
Following a non-jury trial on October 31, 2014, the court convicted Alleyne of all charges. On January 15, 2015, the court sentenced Alleyne to an aggregate term of four to ten years' imprisonment. Alleyne filed a post-sentence motion for reconsideration of sentence, which was denied on January 27, 2015. Alleyne timely appealed, and this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence on December 7, 2015. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied Alleyne's petition for allowance of appeal on June 28, 2016.
Alleyne timely filed the instant PCRA on August 3, 2016. On August 10, 2016, counsel was appointed to represent Alleyne. Alleyne's counsel, having found no meritorious claims to pursue, filed a no-merit letter, pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988), on September 15, 2016. On September 21, 2016, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intention to dismiss Alleyne's PCRA petition without a hearing and permitting PCRA counsel to withdraw. Alleyne responded, objecting to the dismissal, and the PCRA court entered its final order of dismissal on October 20, 2016. Alleyne timely appealed, and raises the following issues for our review:
1. Did trial counsel render ineffective [assistance] that undermined the truth determining process causing Mr. Alleyne to be deprived of a fair trial and did appellate/P.C.R.A. counsel render ineffective [assistance] and deprive Mr. Alleyne of a meaningful appeal?Appellant's Brief, at 4.
2. Did the prosecutor commit misconduct in withholding discovery materials that would have changed the outcome of the trial had they been provided . . . and did the prosecutor commit misconduct depriving appellant of a fair trial?
Alleyne presented this issue more clearly in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, alleging: "Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request discovery materials and order from the higher court to ensure that [Alleyne] was able to prepare a defense and present evidence in [his] favor." Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, 11/22/16, at 1. Further, because Alleyne failed to raise the claims that his appellate counsel and his PCRA counsel were both ineffective in his 1925(b) statement, he has waived those issues on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). --------
After thorough review of Alleyne's arguments, the record, and relevant case law, we rely upon the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable William R. Carpenter in disposing of Alleyne's claims. See PCRA Opinion, 01/23/17. Judge Carpenter properly determined that trial counsel was not ineffective in in failing to compel discovery of Stalling's phone records to establish Stalling's communication with Alleyne at the time of the incident, as any calls Stalling may have made are irrelevant to his claims that he did not make threatening phone calls or call in a 911 false report. Further, the PCRA court properly determined that Alleyne's claims of prosecutorial misconduct were waived, as those claims could have been raised on direct appeal. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9544(b) (an issue is waived if appellant "could have raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, ... on appeal or in a prior state post [-]conviction proceeding.").
Accordingly, we affirm the order dismissing Alleyne's PCRA petition, and direct the parties to attach a copy of Judge Carpenter's opinion in the event of further proceedings.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 8/7/2017
Image materials not available for display.