From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Briggs

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Sep 16, 2022
100 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 16, 2022)

Opinion

100 WDA 2022 J-S25015-22

09-16-2022

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOSEPH W. BRIGGS Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 15, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0012107-2003

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM

BENDER, P.J.E.

Appellant, Joseph W. Briggs, appeals from the post-conviction court's December 15, 2021 order denying his petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. After careful review, we affirm.

In 2006, Appellant was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder. He was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole. Appellant filed a direct appeal, and this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence on June 11, 2008. See Commonwealth v. Briggs, 959 A.2d 457 (Pa. Super. 2008) (unpublished memorandum). Although Appellant did not immediately file a petition for allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court, his right to do so was ultimately reinstated during post-conviction proceedings. Thereafter, Appellant filed a nunc pro tunc petition for allowance of appeal, which our Supreme Court denied on July 2, 2013. Commonwealth v. Briggs, 69 A.3d 599 (Pa. 2013).

On June 5, 2014, Appellant filed a timely, pro se PCRA petition. After delays not pertinent to the issue he raises herein, counsel was appointed and filed an amended petition on Appellant's behalf on February 24, 2021. Therein, Appellant asserted that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing on appeal that the trial court erred by denying Appellant's request to waive his right to a jury trial. After the PCRA court conducted a hearing on September 20, 2021, it issued an order on January 14, 2022, denying Appellant's petition.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and he also timely complied with the PCRA court's order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. The court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on March 17, 2022. Herein, Appellant states one issue for our review:

I. Did the [PCRA] court abuse its discretion in denying the PCRA petition, as amended, where [Appellant] established that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a claim on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow [Appellant] to waive a jury trial?

Appellant's Brief at 4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

"This Court's standard of review from the grant or denial of post-conviction relief is limited to examining whether the lower court's determination is supported by the evidence of record and whether it is free of legal error." Commonwealth v. Morales, 701 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa. 1997) (citing Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 661 A.2d 352, 356 n.4 (Pa. 1995)). Where, as here, a petitioner claims that he or she received ineffective assistance of counsel, our Supreme Court has directed that the following standards apply:

[A] PCRA petitioner will be granted relief only when he proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his conviction or sentence resulted from the "[i]neffective assistance of counsel which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place." 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(ii). "Counsel is presumed effective, and to rebut that presumption, the PCRA petitioner must demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient and that such deficiency prejudiced him." [Commonwealth v.] Colavita, … 993 A.2d [874,] 886 [(Pa. 2010)] (citing Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 ... (1984)]). In Pennsylvania, we have refined the Strickland performance and prejudice test into a three-part inquiry. See [Commonwealth v.] Pierce, [527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987)]. Thus, to prove counsel ineffective, the petitioner must show that: (1) his underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) counsel had no reasonable basis for his action or inaction; and (3) the petitioner suffered actual prejudice as a result. Commonwealth v. Ali,10 A.3d 282, 291 (Pa. 2010). "If a petitioner fails to prove any of these prongs, his claim fails." Commonwealth v. Simpson,66 A.3d 253, 260 ([Pa.] 2013) (citation omitted). Generally, counsel's assistance is deemed constitutionally effective if he chose a particular course of conduct that had some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client's interests. See Ali, supra. Where matters of strategy and tactics are concerned, "a finding that a chosen strategy lacked a reasonable basis is not warranted unless it can be concluded that an alternative not chosen offered a potential for success substantially greater than the course actually pursued." Colavita, … 993 A.2d at 887 (quotation and quotation marks omitted). To demonstrate prejudice, the petitioner must show that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different." Commonwealth v. King,57 A.3d 607, 613 ([Pa.] 2012) (quotation, quotation marks, and citation omitted). "'[A] reasonable probability is a probability that is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding.'" Ali,10 A.3d at 291 (quoting Commonwealth v. Collins,957 A.2d 237, 244 ([Pa.] 2008) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694….)).
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294, 311-12 (Pa. 2014).

Here, Appellant contends that his appellate counsel acted ineffectively by not challenging on appeal the trial court's denial of his request to waive his right to a jury trial. According to Appellant, he presented valid reasons for wanting to waive that right, including that he was afraid that jurors would not understand the different degrees of homicide, they would not be able to be fair and impartial considering the circumstances of his case, and they would be overly sympathetic to the victim. Appellant contends that the trial court summarily dismissed his request to waive his right to a jury without giving him an opportunity to elaborate on his reasons for wanting to do so. Consequently, Appellant insists that his appellate counsel acted ineffectively by not challenging the trial court's error in this regard on direct appeal. He maintains that counsel had no reasonable basis for not raising this issue, and he was prejudiced because he would have received a new trial had his attorney done so.

In assessing Appellant's issue, we have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law. Additionally, we have examined the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Susan Evashavik DiLucente of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. We conclude that Judge Evashavik DiLucente's comprehensive opinion accurately disposes of the issue presented by Appellant. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Evashavik DiLucente's opinion as our own and affirm the order denying Appellant's PCRA petition for the reasons set forth therein.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Briggs

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Sep 16, 2022
100 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 16, 2022)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Briggs

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOSEPH W. BRIGGS Appellant

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Sep 16, 2022

Citations

100 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 16, 2022)