Opinion
J-S95012-16 No. 407 EDA 2016
02-28-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. RAYMOND CRAIG Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order January 15, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0011797-2007 BEFORE: STABILE, MOULTON, and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:
Appellant Raymond Craig appeals from the January 15, 2016 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, which denied his request for collateral relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (the "Act"), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. Upon review, we affirm.
The facts and procedural history underlying this appeal are undisputed. As a prior panel of this Court recounted on Appellant's direct appeal:
On July 29-30, 2009, this court conducted a jury trial. The victim Modibo Ballo ("Ballo") testified first for the Commonwealth. Ballo testified that on September 23, 2007, in the early morning hours, he was inside his home at 1017 South 55th Street in the city of Philadelphia. Ballo stated that he had lived in this house since June 2007. He stated that he was making repairs and was in the process of purchasing the home. Ballo stated that he had a sofa, entertainment center, and six speakers in his living room. On the morning of September 23, 2007, he went downstairs and found his front door open and discovered that two speakers and one amp were missing from his living room. He called 911 and then looked out the front
door and saw that the basement window was broken. He immediately went into the basement to check on his newly installed heating system. When he came back upstairs, he saw Appellant inside his home in the living room. Ballo stated that Appellant ran out the front door and that he ran after Appellant and chased him several blocks. Ballo stated that Appellant grabbed a stick from the ground and began swinging it at him and then dropped the stick and started walking away. Ballo chased him again. He then grabbed Appellant, pulled him to the ground, and sat on top of him. As an onlooker called 911, Ballo testified that Appellant stated 'Let me go and I'll get you back your stuff.' Ballo then let Appellant stand up and the two men talked until the police arrived.Commonwealth v. Craig , No. 3626 EDA 2009, unpublished memorandum, at 1-3 (Pa. Super. filed July 26, 2011) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Appellant subsequently was charged and convicted by a jury of burglary under Section 3502 of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502, and sentenced to 10 to 20 years' imprisonment. Appellant timely appealed to this Court. We affirmed his judgment of sentence, concluding, inter alia, that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Appellant entered Ballo's house with the intention of committing theft. Appellant did not file a petition for allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court.
Police Officer Charles Vallette ("Vallette") testified next for the Commonwealth. He stated that he had worked for the Philadelphia Police Department for seven years and had been assigned to the 18th District for the entirety of those seven years. He testified that on September 23, 2007 he was assigned to the burglary detail unit and worked the 8 am to 4 pm shift. Immediately after starting work, Vallette stated that he received a radio call that two males were fighting on the highway at 52nd and Baltimore. Vallette arrived at the scene approximately one minute later and saw two males with their hands on each other. When he approached the two men, he stated that Appellant tried to walk away but Vallette requested that he 'sit tight' and Appellant complied. After Vallette talked to Ballo, he placed Appellant in the back of his patrol car. Vallette then began to take down information to prepare a police report. Vallette testified that Appellant stated that he thought the place was abandoned at least three times.
Police Office Michael Nuassner ("Naussner") testified next for the Commonwealth. He stated that he had worked for the Philadelphia Police Department for three years and had worked in the 18th District for two years. Naussner testified that he responded to a radio call for backup on September 23, 2007 around 8 am. When he arrived at 52nd and Baltimore, he stated that Appellant and Ballo were arguing and that Appellant was shirtless, sweating, and yelling. Ballo told police that Appellant had broken into his home, while Appellant screamed that he thought the house was abandoned. After Appellant was frisked and placed in the patrol car, Naussner stayed with him. Naussner testified that Appellant told him, 'There was a piece of wood on the basement window and I went into it, and I thought the house was abandoned.' Naussner then went to Ballo's home with Ballo to examine the property. He stated that the front door was wide open but he thought the place looked inhabited and was in decent condition.
On July 18, 2012, Appellant pro se filed a PCRA petition. The PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed an amended PCRA petition, raising two ineffectiveness claims. Specifically, Appellant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) challenge the weight of the evidence before the trial court and (2) request a lesser included charge of criminal trespass. On January 15, 2016, following a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, the PCRA court denied Appellant relief for want of merit. Appellant timely appealed to this Court.
On appeal, Appellant repeats the same two ineffectiveness claims that he raised before the PCRA court. After careful review of the record and the relevant case law, we conclude that the PCRA court accurately and thoroughly addressed the merits of Appellant's claims. See PCRA Court Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 2/10/16, at 4-10. Accordingly, we affirm the PCRA court's January 15, 2016 order. We further direct that a copy of the PCRA court's February 10, 2016 Rule 1925(a) opinion be attached to any future filings in this case.
"On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard of review requires us to determine whether the ruling of the PCRA court is supported by the record and free of legal error." Commonwealth v. Widgins , 29 A.3d 816, 819 (Pa. Super. 2011).
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 2/28/2017
Image materials not available for display.