Opinion
J-S67036-17 No. 540 EDA 2017
11-20-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. KERVIN L. BROWN Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order January 13, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002995-2012, CP-51-CR-0002996-2012 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUSMANNO, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. --------
Appellant, Kervin L. Brown, appeals pro se from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his first petition brought pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). We affirm.
Appellant's first name is alternatively referred to as "Kevin" throughout the record.
The PCRA court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case as follows:
[Appellant] has appealed from the order of January 13, 2017, denying him relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act [at] 42 Pa.C.S. § [9541] et seq. By way of
background, [Appellant] was arrested and charged with two counts of murder generally and violations of the Uniform Firearms Act. On August 28, 2013, [Appellant] appeared before this [c]ourt and entered into a negotiated guilty plea to two counts of third-degree murder and a single count of possession of a firearm prohibited in exchange for an aggregate sentence of forty to eighty years' incarceration. Said sentence was imposed immediately following the guilty plea hearing and the recording of the verdict.(PCRA Court Opinion, filed February 14, 2017, at 1-2).
[Appellant] did not file either a post-sentence motion or a notice of appeal following the imposition of sentence. On January 2, 2014, however, [Appellant] filed a [timely] pro se PCRA petition. Counsel was appointed to represent [Appellant] and on March 25, 2015, counsel filed an Amended Petition that alleged that his guilty plea was unlawfully induced by a Philadelphia Police Detective named Ronald Dove, who took an inculpatory statement from [Appellant] in the instant matter together with another detective following [Appellant]'s arrest. [Appellant] asserted that he discovered that Detective Dove himself was arrested and charged with falsifying evidence, which, according to [Appellant], called into question the authenticity, validity, and reliability of [Appellant]'s inculpatory statement to police and the entry of his guilty plea. Upon conducting a careful review of the record in this case and the service of a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice upon [Appellant], this [c]ourt on January 13, 2017, denied [Appellant] PCRA relief without a hearing. [Appellant] thereafter filed a notice of appeal and an ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement of [Errors].
The charges in this matter arose out of an incident that occurred on December 31, 2011, in the area of the 5600 block of North 2nd Street in Philadelphia during which [Appellant] shot and killed Arlette Aguero and Alejandro Garro as they sat in a car. [Appellant] shot them because he thought Garro was a drug dealer named "Tone" who [Appellant] believed was after him because he was selling drugs in Tone's territory. The shootings [were] witnessed by at least two persons who cooperated with police. Upon arresting [Appellant], he gave police a statement wherein he admitted that he shot the victims.
Appellant raises one issue on appeal:
DID THE [PCRA] COURT ERR IN DENYING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IN THIS MATTER WHEN APPELLANT RAISED A MATERIAL ISSUE OF FACT BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE THAT [APPELLANT'S] GUILTY PLEA WAS UNLAWFULLY INDUCED BY COERCION AND MANIPULATION BY THE POLICE DETECTIVE WHO TOOK THE STATEMENT OF APPELLANT?(Appellant's Brief at 2).
Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to examining whether the record evidence supports the court's determination and whether the court's decision is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Ford , 947 A.2d 1251 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 598 Pa. 779, 959 A.2d 319 (2008). This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if the record contains any support for those findings. Commonwealth v. Boyd , 923 A.2d 513 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 593 Pa. 754, 932 A.2d 74 (2007). A petitioner is not entitled to a PCRA hearing as a matter of right; the PCRA court can decline to hold a hearing if there is no genuine issue concerning any material fact, the petitioner is not entitled to PCRA relief, and no purpose would be served by any further proceedings. Commonwealth v. Hardcastle , 549 Pa. 450, 701 A.2d 541 (1997).
Appellant argues his newly discovered evidence raised a material issue of fact that his guilty plea was unlawfully induced by coercion and manipulation. Specifically, Appellant claims Ronald Dove, a Philadelphia Police Detective, caused Appellant to plead guilty when he was innocent and that this evidence was unavailable until after his conviction and sentence. Appellant first learned by letter from the public defender's office on October 30, 2013, that Detective Dove was under investigation for offenses involving false statements to authorities and obstruction of justice. Appellant asserts Detective Dove was later arrested for these offenses on January 22, 2015, and pled guilty to flight to avoid apprehension, conspiracy to hinder prosecution, hindering prosecution, obstruction, unsworn falsification, and tampering with physical evidence. Appellant maintains Detective Dove took Appellant's confession and was a key witness at Appellant's preliminary hearing; and the Commonwealth relied on the confession during the guilty plea proceedings. Appellant draws attention to his trial counsel's certification that she would have pursued a self-defense claim on Appellant's behalf, if she had known of the criminal inquiry into Detective Dove. Appellant also avers he would testify that Detective Dove manipulated and coerced Appellant to make a false confession. Appellant concludes his proposed after-discovered evidence creates a material issue of fact that demands an evidentiary hearing on his petition. For the following reasons, we cannot agree.
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Jeffrey P. Minehart, we conclude Appellant's issue merits no relief. The PCRA court opinion fully discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See PCRA Court Opinion at 3-7) (finding: in his PCRA petitions, Appellant presented no evidence to support his claim; Appellant entered his plea before Detective Dove allegedly engaged in criminal conduct unrelated to Appellant's confession; Appellant failed to explain how Detective Dove coerced a confession or guilty plea; Appellant provided no description of Detective Dove's actions during interview and did not establish connection between Detective Dove's other misconduct and Appellant's confession; Appellant failed to discuss four elements of newly-discovered evidence claim; moreover, even if Appellant had discussed elements of newly-discovered evidence claim, he would not be entitled to relief, where Detective Dove was not lead detective in Appellant's case and conducted Appellant's interview with another detective, whom Appellant does not accuse of wrongdoing; evidence of Appellant's guilt was overwhelming, because two eyewitnesses saw Appellant's crime, and Appellant confessed to second detective; thus, Appellant failed to establish Detective Dove's involvement controlled outcome of Appellant's case; additionally, argument concerning Detective Dove's alleged unrelated criminal conduct would serve only to impeach his credibility; further, review of Appellant's guilty plea demonstrates Appellant entered his plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily; court conducted oral guilty plea colloquy, and Appellant signed written colloquy form; both colloquies advised Appellant of his rights and indicated which rights he waived by pleading guilty; record does not indicate Appellant would have elected to proceed to trial if he had been aware of Detective Dove's alleged unrelated criminal conduct; Appellant was not entitled to PCRA evidentiary hearing, because he failed to support his claim that Detective Dove manipulated or induced Appellant's confession or guilty plea). The record supports the court's decision to deny Appellant a hearing on his petition and/or PCRA relief on the claim presented. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court's opinion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 11/20/2017
Image materials not available for display.