Opinion
J-S07031-17 No. 1186 MDA 2016
03-23-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SEQUOYAH NATIVE HAWKINS, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order July 14, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Criminal Division, No(s): CP-36-CR-0000235-2010 BEFORE: BOWES, LAZARUS and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
Sequoyah Native Hawkins ("Hawkins") appeals from the Order denying his Petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Additionally, Hawkins's appointed counsel, Christopher P. Lyden, Esquire ("Attorney Lyden"), has filed a Petition to Withdraw as counsel, and an accompanying brief. We grant Attorney Lyden's Petition to Withdraw and affirm the PCRA court's Order.
Attorney Lyden's appellate brief appears to be in the nature of a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), which applies when counsel seeks to withdraw from representation on direct appeal. When, as in this case, counsel seeks to withdraw from representation on collateral appeal, the dictates of Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc), are applicable. However, because an Anders brief provides greater protection to a defendant, this Court may accept an Anders brief in lieu of a Turner / Finley "no-merit" letter. See Commonwealth v. Reed , 107 A.3d 137, 139 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2014).
In its Opinion, the PCRA court set forth the relevant factual and procedural history, which we adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See PCRA Court Opinion, 7/14/16, at 1-4; see also id. at 4-7 (wherein the PCRA court summarized the testimony provided by Hawkins and his trial counsel during the evidentiary hearing).
On July 14, 2016, the PCRA court denied Hawkins's Petition. Hawkins, through counsel, filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of errors complained of on appeal. On December 5, 2016, Attorney Lyden filed a Petition to Withdraw as counsel.
In the Turner / Finley brief, Attorney Lyden presents the following issues for our review:
I. Did the PCRA court err by failing to find that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately prepare [Hawkins] to testify at trial?Turner / Finley Brief at 4. Hawkins did not file a separate pro se brief, nor did he retain alternate counsel for this appeal.
II. Did the PCRA court err by failing to find trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to seek limited admissibility of portions of [Hawkins's] testimony?
The Commonwealth did not file a brief on appeal. --------
Before addressing Hawkins's claims, we must determine whether Attorney Lyden complied with the requirements of Turner / Finley in petitioning to withdraw as counsel. Pursuant to Turner / Finley , independent review of the record by competent counsel is required before withdrawal on collateral appeal is permitted. Commonwealth v. Pitts , 981 A.2d 875, 876 n.1 (Pa. 2009). Such independent review requires proof of
1) A "no-merit" letter by PCRA counsel detailing the nature and extent of his review;Id. (citation and brackets omitted).
2) The "no-merit" letter by PCRA counsel listing each issue the petitioner wished to have reviewed;
3) The PCRA counsel's "explanation", in the "no-merit" letter, of why the petitioner's issues were meritless;
4) The [] court conducting its own independent review of the record; and
5) The [] court agreeing with counsel that the petition was meritless.
Here, Attorney Lyden indicated that he conscientiously reviewed the record, identified the issues that Hawkins seeks to raise, and explained why the issues lack merit. In addition, Attorney Lyden sent Hawkins copies of the Turner / Finley brief and Petition to Withdraw, and advised him of his rights in lieu of representation in the event that the court granted Attorney Lyden permission to withdraw, in compliance with Commonwealth v. Widgins , 29 A.3d 816, 818 (Pa. Super. 2011). Thus, we conclude that Attorney Lyden has substantially complied with the requirements necessary to withdraw as counsel. See Commonwealth v. Karanicolas , 836 A.2d 940, 947 (Pa. Super. 2003) (holding that substantial compliance with the requirements to withdraw as counsel will satisfy the Turner / Finley criteria). We now independently review Hawkins's claims to ascertain whether they entitle him to relief.
We review an order [denying] a petition under the PCRA in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level. This review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record. We will not disturb a PCRA court's ruling if it is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal error.Commonwealth v. Ford , 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted).
We will consider Hawkins's claims together. In his first claim, Hawkins asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for adducing testimony from him at trial, which ultimately provided a basis for the admission of a video depicting Hawkins performing a rap song with violent lyrics. Turner / Finley Brief at 9. Hawkins claims that his trial counsel did not explain that Hawkins's testimony regarding his own non-violent nature would provide a basis for the admission of the rap video at trial. Id. at 10. In his second claim, Hawkins argues that his trial counsel did not explain that his testimony regarding the victim's violent nature and gang association would provide a basis for the admission of the rap video at trial. Id. Further, Hawkins contends that, had he understood the consequences, he would have avoided providing such testimony to prevent the admission of the rap video. Id.
In its Opinion, the PCRA court set forth the relevant law, addressed Hawkins's claims, and concluded that they lack merit. See PCRA Court Opinion, 7/14/16, at 8-14. We adopt the sound reasoning of the PCRA court for the purpose of this appeal. See id.
Our independent review of the record indicates that there are no other claims of arguable merit. See Pitts , 981 A.2d at 876 n.1. Accordingly, we grant Attorney Lyden's Petition to Withdraw and affirm the Order denying Hawkins's Petition.
Petition to Withdraw as counsel granted; Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 3/23/2017
Image materials not available for display.