From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Brooks

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug 14, 2018
No. 2816 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 14, 2018)

Opinion

J-S22022-18 No. 2816 EDA 2016

08-14-2018

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. MICHAEL A. BROOKS Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence imposed March 14, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division at No: CP-09-CR-0005547-2012 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:

Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

Appellant, Michael A. Brooks, appeals from his judgment of sentence of life imprisonment for first degree murder and other offenses. We affirm.

The trial court summarized the evidence adduced during trial as follows:

Prior to the events at issue, Daniel Buchanan (hereinafter "the victim") battled an addiction to opiates. The victim attempted to stay clean, sustained employment and attempted to support his daughter prior to his murder. The victim had a reputation in the drug world for not paying drug dealers. The victim owed Appellant money—the [suspected] motive for the underlying offense.

On June 15, 2007, around 5:00 a.m., the victim was in his car speaking with another drug addict on the sidewalk, Sandra Wilson, when Appellant recognized him. Appellant then approached the victim's vehicle and screamed: "I'm about to merk your ass," while reaching for something behind his back. Ms. Wilson then heard
several gunshots as she turned her back to the vehicle and moved away. Another eyewitness made a statement to police that she heard Appellant state: "That's the nigger that taxed me. I'm going to merk his ass," just before he pulled out a handgun from his back waistband and several shots rang out. A third witness heard the gunshots, saw Appellant in the proximity and then ran into a nearby home.

The victim was shot four times by Appellant from the street into the victim's car. In an attempt to flee, the victim drove off and crashed into a tree. The victim died as a result of the gunshot wounds, not from the vehicle crash. Blood analysis revealed the victim had a blood alcohol content of .059 and some cocaine in his system. After the shooting, Appellant entered a nearby home with a gun in his possession, where his girlfriend (at the time) was staying, to wash his hands with bleach. After washing away any evidence of gun powder residue, Appellant fled in a friend's vehicle and called his girlfriend instructing her to visit the scene of the crime for him. During the aforementioned phone call, Appellant admitted to shooting the victim and believing he had killed the victim. Appellant then told his girlfriend, that he would kill her and her family if she cooperated with law enforcement.

Detective O'Keefe of the Bristol Township Police Department obtained an arrest warrant for Appellant on February 9, 2012. On September 14, 2012, Appellant was arraigned.

Appellant's brother made a grand jury statement that Appellant had killed a man in the spring or summer of 2007 because he owed him money, though the declarant testified that he denied or did not remember stating this. The brother's statement also made reference to the type of gun Appellant used—which was consistent with the murder weapon, a revolver. The murder weapon was never recovered, however, a letter was sent to Appellant's brother that Appellant passed the firearm to a friend for disposing.
Trial Court Opinion, 10/2/17, at 2-4.

A jury found Appellant guilty of all charges, and on March 14, 2013, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment. Appellant filed timely post-sentence motions, which the trial court denied on August 2, 2013. Appellant did not file a direct appeal, but on March 13, 2014, he filed a timely petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546, alleging that his attorney was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal. On August 3, 2016, by agreement of the parties, Appellant's direct appeal rights were reinstated. Thereafter, Appellant appealed to this Court, and his counsel filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925 statement of matters complained of on appeal.

In this Court, Appellant filed a petition seeking remand for a hearing under Commonwealth v. Grazier , 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998), so that he could represent himself and file a supplemental Rule 1925(b) statement. This Court remanded the case for a Grazier hearing while otherwise retaining jurisdiction. The trial court held a Grazier hearing, and on April 17, 2017, it notified this Court that Appellant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. Accordingly, we permitted Appellant to proceed pro se in this appeal.

On June 12, 2017, at Appellant's request, we remanded the certified record to the trial court and directed Appellant to file a supplemental Rule 1925(b) statement within 21 days. It appears from exhibits attached to Appellant's brief that he mailed a supplemental Rule 1925(b) statement to the District Attorney and trial judge within the 21-day period, but the supplemental statement was never docketed. On October 2, 2017, the trial court issued a supplemental opinion in which it responded to Appellant's supplemental Rule 1925(b) statement. The trial court recommended that we find the issues in Appellant's supplemental Rule 1925(b) statement waived. Because it appears that Appellant mailed his statement to the trial judge, we will deem his statement timely filed.

Appellant raises two arguments in his brief: (1) the trial court usurped the jury's authority under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711 by determining that this was not a capital case; and (2) the trial court deprived Appellant of the opportunity to question trial counsel during the Grazier hearing about counsel's actions during trial. Neither argument has merit.

Section 9711 governs sentencing procedures in capital cases. It does not apply to this case because the Commonwealth never pursued the death penalty. Appellant appears to argue that his conviction is invalid because the jury never had the option of imposing the death penalty. We see no merit in an argument that Appellant should have been exposed to a harsher sentence than what he received.

Appellant's second argument, that the court denied him the opportunity to question counsel during the Grazier hearing concerning the quality of his representation, is not cognizable on direct appeal. "As a general rule, a petitioner should wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel until collateral review." Commonwealth v. Grant , 813 A.2d 726, 738 (Pa. 2002). Absent extraordinary circumstances, the appropriate vehicle for raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is in a PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Holmes , 79 A.2d 562, 577-78 (Pa. 2013) (permitting claims of ineffectiveness in post-sentence motions where claims have obvious merit and where defendant knowingly and expressly waives right to seek PCRA review). We see no such extraordinary circumstances in this record.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 8/14/18


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Brooks

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug 14, 2018
No. 2816 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 14, 2018)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Brooks

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. MICHAEL A. BROOKS Appellant

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Aug 14, 2018

Citations

No. 2816 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 14, 2018)