Opinion
J-S89006-16 No. 3525 EDA 2015
01-04-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. ANTOINE D. CHAMBARLAIN, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order November 17, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0203881-2006 BEFORE: SHOGAN, MOULTON, and FITZGERALD, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Antoine D. Chambarlain ("Appellant") appeals from the order denying his petition for collateral relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
This case arises out of a fatal shooting that occurred on July 24, 2005, in the area of 60th Street and Lansdowne Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The PCRA court summarized the facts of the underlying case as follows:
[Appellant] served as the driver during a planned drive-by shooting. [Appellant's] brother, Jerrell Washington, who was sitting in the rear, shot and killed an innocent bystander, Walworth Gardiner. [Appellant's] friend, Travis Truitt, who
testified for the Commonwealth, sat in the front passenger seat. ([N.T.] 4/19/2010, pp. 17-20, 22-30, 34, 77).PCRA Court Opinion, 7/6/16, at 1-2, n.1. The PCRA court recounted the procedural history, as follows:
At the scene, police saw a possible second victim, Antoine Hall, who likely was the actual target of the shooting. (Mr. Hall had what appeared to have been a bullet hole in his leg and in his pants.) However, Mr. Hall was very uncooperative: he refused to talk to police and declined an ambulance ride to the hospital. (N.T. 4/21/2010, pp. 50-52).
A witness on the scene wrote down the make, model, and license plate number of the car from which the shots had been fired and promptly conveyed the information to police. As a result, the vehicle was found less than ten minutes after the shooting was reported. (N.T. 4/21/2010, pp. 46-49; 4/22/20[10], pp. 6-9, 13-14).
Travis Truitt eventually cooperated with police by identifying [Appellant] and Washington as his co-conspirators. Truitt pleaded guilty to murder of the third degree and criminal conspiracy. (N.T. 4/19/2010, pp. 40, 64-65, 97, 100, 109).
On April 29, 2010, following a jury trial before this court, [Appellant] was found guilty of murder of the first degree, criminal conspiracy, and possessing an instrument of crime. Also on April 29, 2009, this court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment for the conviction of murder of the first degree. [Appellant] also received concurrent terms of ten (10) to twenty (20) years of imprisonment for the conviction of criminal conspiracy and two and one-half (2½) to five (5) years of imprisonment for possessing an instrument of crime. At trial, [Appellant] was represented by Nino Tinari, Esquire[, who also represented Appellant on direct appeal].
[Appellant] appealed, and on December 30, 2011, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed [Appellant's] judgments of sentence. [Appellant's] petition for allowance of appeal was denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on May 15, 2012.
On March 15, 2013, [Appellant] filed a timely pro se petition pursuant to the [PCRA]. . . . Janis Smarro, Esquire, was subsequently appointed as [Appellant's] counsel. On September 2, 2014, Attorney Smarro filed an Amended PCRA petition. On July 14, 2015, the Commonwealth filed a Motion to Dismiss. On November 17, 2015, this court dismissed [Appellant's] PCRA petition for lack of merit.PCRA Court Opinion, 7/6/16, at 1-2 (footnotes omitted). The PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
On November 18, 2015, [Appellant's] counsel filed a timely Notice of Appeal, and on May 10, 2016, [Appellant] filed an unsolicited Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
On appeal, Appellant raises the following questions for our review:
I. Is Appellant is [sic] entitled to post-conviction relief in the form of a new trial or a remand for an evidentiary hearing as a result of the ineffective assistance of trial counsel which deprived Appellant of a fair and impartial trial and due process of law in violation of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution?
A. Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object at trial when the prosecutor improperly vouched for the testimony of cooperating co-conspirator Travis Truitt on direct examination constituting prosecutorial misconduct which deprived Appellant of a fair and impartial trial and due process of law in violation of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution?
B. Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to pursue on appeal the issue of the trial court's error in failing to declare a mistrial when the prosecutor committed misconduct when she improperly elicited from its [sic] witness highly prejudicial evidence concerning Appellant's pre-arrest/post-Miranda silence in response to police questioning in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Article I, section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution depriving Appellant of his right not to be compelled to give evidence against himself, due process of law, a fair and impartial trial and meaningful and effective appellate review in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Articles I, section 9 and V, section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution?Appellant's Brief at 4-6.
C. Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to pursue the issue on direct appeal that the trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to introduce various inadmissible out-of-court testimonial hearsay statements through witnesses for the Commonwealth depriving Appellant of his right to confront witnesses in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Articles I, section 9 and V, section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution?
D. Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object at trial when the trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to introduce into evidence highly prejudicial, irrelevant and inadmissible testimonial hearsay statements when a witness for the Commonwealth testified on direct examination that on the date of the incident an individual told him that he was shot during the incident and refused medical treatment depriving Appellant of his right to confront the witnesses against him and a fair and impartial trial in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution?
E. Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to pursue the issue on direct appeal that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct at trial when the prosecutor elicited inadmissible, irrelevant, highly inflammatory and prejudicial character-propensity evidence on direct examination of a witness for the Commonwealth depriving Appellant of due process of law, a fair and impartial trial and meaningful and effective appellate review in violation of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Articles I, section 9 and V, section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution?
When reviewing the propriety of an order denying PCRA relief, this Court is limited to determining whether the evidence of record supports the conclusions of the PCRA court and whether the ruling is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Robinson , 139 A.3d 178, 185 (Pa. 2016). The PCRA court's findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for them in the certified record. Commonwealth v. Lippert , 85 A.3d 1095, 1100 (Pa. Super. 2014).
Appellant first presents a blanket averment of ineffective assistance of counsel, which, he contends, warrants a new trial or evidentiary hearing. Appellant's Brief at 15. He then presents five specific claims: (A) counsel failed to object to the prosecutor allegedly vouching for cooperating witness Travis Truitt; (B) counsel failed to pursue on direct appeal whether the trial court erred in denying a mistrial based on a detective's reference to Appellant's pre-arrest silence; (C) counsel failed to pursue on direct appeal the allegedly improper admission of testimonial hearsay; (D) counsel failed to object to allegedly testimonial hearsay about another shooting victim who refused medical treatment; and (E) counsel failed to pursue on direct appeal the issue of prosecutorial misconduct based on the eliciting of prejudicial character evidence from a Commonwealth witness. Id. at 19, 34, 40, 50, and 54.
To plead and prove ineffective assistance of counsel a petitioner must establish: (1) that the underlying issue has arguable merit; (2) counsel's actions lacked an objective reasonable basis; and (3) actual prejudice resulted from counsel's act or failure to act. Commonwealth v. Stewart , 84 A.3d 701, 706 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc). A claim of ineffectiveness will be denied if the petitioner's evidence fails to meet any one of these prongs. Commonwealth v. Martin , 5 A.3d 177, 183 (Pa. 2010). Counsel is presumed to have rendered effective assistance. Commonwealth v. Montalvo , 114 A.3d 401, 410 (Pa. 2015). We have explained that trial counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless claim. Commonwealth v. Loner , 836 A.2d 125, 132 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc). "We need not analyze the prongs of an ineffectiveness claim in any particular order. Rather, we may discuss first any prong that an appellant cannot satisfy under the prevailing law and the applicable facts and circumstances of the case." Commonwealth v. Johnson , 139 A.3d 1257, 1272 (Pa. 2016) (citing Commonwealth v. Albrecht , 720 A.2d 693, 701 (Pa. 1998)).
Additionally, we note that a PCRA petitioner is not automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Commonwealth v. Wah , 42 A.3d 335, 338 (Pa. Super. 2012) (internal citations omitted). We review the PCRA court's decision dismissing a petition without a hearing for an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Miller , 102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). On appeal, we examine the issues raised in light of the record "to determine whether the PCRA court erred in concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and in denying relief without an evidentiary hearing." Id.
After reviewing the briefs of the parties, the certified record, and the relevant authority, we conclude that the PCRA court's opinion thoroughly addresses and accurately disposes of Appellant's claims. Because Appellant did not raise any genuine issues of material fact, the PCRA court did not err in denying relief without an evidentiary hearing. Miller , 102 A.3d at 992. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Appellant collateral relief, and we do so on the basis of the PCRA court's July 6, 2016 opinion.
The parties are directed to attach a copy of the PCRA court opinion in the event of further proceedings in this matter.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/4/2017
Image materials not available for display.