Opinion
J. S26027/17 No. 1259 MDA 2016
06-22-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MICHAEL ALLEN WILLIAMS, APPELLANT
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order June 28, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-38-CR-0000414-2014 BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., and FITZGERALD, J. MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Michael Allen Williams, appeals from the June 28, 2016 Order denying his first Petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46, and challenges, inter alia, the effectiveness of trial counsel. After careful review, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's Opinion.
The trial court's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion includes a thorough and complete narrative of the facts and procedural history of this case, which we adopt for purposes of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, filed 6/28/16, at 2-12. While we will not go into exhaustive detail here, some of the relevant facts are as follows.
On February 15, 2014, at a bar in the city of Lebanon, Appellant, believing that the victim had been flirting with his girlfriend, entered the bar with a knife in his hand, walked directly up to the victim at a fast pace, and began stabbing him. Although the victim was unarmed, he was able to fight off Appellant, eventually subduing him. The bartender, Lori Smith, witnessed the fight. In addition, security cameras inside the bar captured the entire incident from two different angles. Police transported the victim, who was bleeding heavily from 13 stab wounds, to the Hershey Medical Center by ambulance, where he was treated for his injuries.
Police officers who responded to the scene arrested Appellant and charged him with Attempted Homicide, Aggravated Assault, and other related charges.
Appellant proceeded to a jury trial. On August 6, 2014, the jury acquitted Appellant of the Attempted Homicide charge, but found him guilty of Aggravated Assault and all other related charges. On October 29, 2014, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 11½ to 23 years of imprisonment.
Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA Petition. The PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed an Amended PCRA Petition on April 5, 2016.
The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing on June 20, 2016. On June 28, 2016, the PCRA court entered an Order denying Appellant's PCRA Petition.
Appellant timely appealed, and all parties complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. On appeal, Appellant raises six issues.
1. Whether Trial Counsel was ineffective when she failed to object to the Commonwealth's leading questions and hearsay evidence from multiple witnesses during Appellant's [t]rial?Appellant's Brief at 4-5 (reordered for ease of disposition).
2. Whether Trial Counsel was ineffective when she failed to call witnesses on Appellant's behalf at trial where the Appellant gave Trial Counsel a list of potential witnesses and phone numbers and specifically told Trial Counsel that he definitely wanted [Appellant's girlfriend,] Melissa Eiler[,] to testify on his behalf?
3. Whether Trial Counsel was ineffective when she failed to properly cross-examine the Commonwealth's witness, Lori Smith, where her testimony clearly contradicted the video footage, and where said contradiction would have shown the jury that it was plausible that [] Appellant did not wield a weapon?
4. Whether Trial Counsel was ineffective when she failed to introduce the alleged victim's toxicology reports from the night of the alleged incident, where said reports were known and available to Trial Counsel, and would have supported Appellant's self-defense claim?
5. Whether Trial Counsel was ineffective when she allowed the Trial Court to utilize an incorrect criminal record at [s]entencing?
6. Whether Appellant was denied his constitutionally-guaranteed right to due process when the Commonwealth disclosed information to the alleged victim prior to his testimony, regarding the whereabouts of the weapon that was used in the alleged incident?
When reviewing the denial of PCRA Petition, "we examine whether the PCRA court's determination is supported by the record and free of legal error." Commonwealth v. Fears , 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We grant great deference to the findings of the PCRA court, and "these findings will not be disturbed unless they have no support in the certified record." Commonwealth v. Wilson , 824 A.2d 331, 333 (Pa. Super. 2003). "The scope of review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the trial level." Commonwealth v. Spotz , 84 A.3d 294, 311 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted). Moreover, "[w]here a PCRA court's credibility determinations are supported by the record, they are binding on the reviewing court." Commonwealth v. White , 734 A.2d 374, 381 (Pa. 1999). With this standard in mind, we address each of Appellant's claims.
Ineffective Assistance Claims
Appellant's first five issues contend that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance to Appellant. In analyzing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we presume that counsel was effective unless the PCRA petitioner proves otherwise. Commonwealth v. Williams , 732 A.2d 1167, 1177 (Pa. 1999). In order to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant must demonstrate (1) that the underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) that counsel's performance lacked a reasonable basis; and (3) that the ineffectiveness of counsel caused the appellant prejudice. Commonwealth v. Fulton , 830 A.2d 567, 572 (Pa. 2003). "[Where] the underlying claim lacks arguable merit, counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise it." Commonwealth v. Koehler , 36 A.3d 121, 140 (Pa. 2012). Appellant bears the burden of proving each of these elements, and his "failure to satisfy any prong of the ineffectiveness test requires rejection of the claim of ineffectiveness." Commonwealth v. Daniels , 963 A.2d 409, 419 (Pa. 2009) (citation omitted).
In his first ineffectiveness claim, Appellant points to seven specific instances in which he avers that the Commonwealth improperly asked leading questions of witnesses or elicited hearsay testimony from witnesses. In each of these seven instances, Appellant avers that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object. See Appellant's Brief at 9-20. The Honorable Bradford H. Charles has authored a comprehensive, thorough, and well-reasoned Opinion, separately addressing each of Appellant's seven claims, with references to the record and a thorough discussion of the relevant case law. After a careful review of the parties' arguments and the record, we affirm on the basis of that Opinion, which found that certain leading questions from the Commonwealth were not improper, and that Appellant was not prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to object where the testimony or questions may have been improper. See Trial Court Opinion at 14-21.
Second, Appellant avers that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call three witnesses: his girlfriend, Melissa Eiler, as well as Java Pinson, Dawn Justiano, and Latoya Williams. Appellant's Brief at 20-26. Judge Charles' Opinion includes a comprehensive, thorough, and well-reasoned discussion of this claim. After a careful review of the parties' arguments, and the record, we affirm on the basis of that Opinion, which found that: (i) Appellant failed to establish that Java Pinson, Latoya Williams, or Latoya Williams were known to trial counsel and available at trial; (ii) trial counsel strategically chose not to call Melissa Eiler because her testimony, that the victim had made romantic advances towards her, would support the Commonwealth's theory of motive; and (iii) Appellant was not prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to call Melissa Eiler because she could only testify to threats the victim made to Appellant after Appellant had already stabbed the victim. Trial Court Opinion at 22-23.
Third, Appellant avers that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to cross-examine Commonwealth's witness Lori Smith on alleged inconsistencies between her testimony and the surveillance footage of the attack. Appellant's Brief at 27-31. Judge Charles' Opinion includes a comprehensive, thorough, and well-reasoned discussion of this claim. After a careful review of the parties' arguments, and the record, we affirm on the basis of that Opinion, which found that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to cross-examine Lori Smith on the alleged inconsistencies because there were no substantive inconsistencies between her testimony at trial and the surveillance footage. Trial Court Opinion at 23-24.
At the PCRA hearing, Appellant explained the lack of substantive inconsistencies by averring that someone must have altered the surveillance footage. Trial Court Opinion at 23. The trial court found no evidence to support this claim, and Appellant does not advance this claim in his Brief to this Court. --------
Fourth, Appellant avers that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present a toxicology report that revealed that the victim had drugs in his system at the time Appellant stabbed him. Appellant's Brief at 31-35. Judge Charles' Opinion includes a comprehensive, thorough, and well-reasoned discussion of this claim. After a careful review of the parties' arguments, and the record, we affirm on the basis of that Opinion, which notes that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to introduce the report into evidence because "no such toxicology report exists." Trial Court Opinion at 24.
Fifth, Appellant avers that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the veracity of four felony convictions from North Carolina that were included in Appellant's prior record score. Appellant's Brief at 38-44. Judge Charles' Opinion includes a comprehensive, thorough, and well-reasoned discussion of this claim. After a careful review of the parties' arguments, and the record, we affirm on the basis of that Opinion, which found that: (i) trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the inclusion of his prior convictions in Appellant's prior record score where she had investigated Appellant's mistaken identity claim and learned that his prior record had been verified using Appellant's name, date of birth, Social Security number, and fingerprints; and (ii) even if the contested convictions had not been included in Appellant's prior record score, Judge Charles, who sentenced Appellant, would have imposed the same sentence. Trial Court Opinion at 25-28.
Prosecutorial Misconduct
In his final claim, Appellant avers that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct when she disclosed information to the victim in order to evoke that information from him during his direct examination. Appellant's Brief at 35-38. Specifically, Appellant avers that the victim testified at trial that Appellant "went home and took the knife off the wall to come back and kill [the victim]." Id. at 37. According to Appellant, there is no way the victim could have known that the knife hung on the wall in his home and, therefore, the Commonwealth must have improperly given the victim this information. Id.
Appellant's Brief quotes Appellant's testimony at the PCRA hearing, where he claimed to recall the victim offering that testimony at trial. Id. at 36-37. Appellant does not provide citation to the trial transcript indicating where the victim testified to the location of the knife in Appellant's home. Further, Appellant does not direct our attention to any evidence that would support his bald allegation of prosecutorial misconduct.
Judge Charles' Opinion includes a comprehensive, thorough, and well-reasoned discussion of this claim. After a careful review of the parties' arguments, and the record, we affirm on the basis of that Opinion, which found, inter alia, that Appellant misrepresents the victim's testimony and the trial transcript is "devoid of any testimony indicating where [Appellant] kept a knife within his home." Trial Court Opinion at 24-25.
The parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court's June 28, 2016 Opinion to all future filings.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 6/22/2017
Image materials not available for display.