Opinion
J-S02036-21 No. 1260 EDA 2020
04-14-2021
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CARNELL CHAMBERLAIN Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 17, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0409611-2003 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J. MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.:
Appellant Carnell Chamberlain appeals from the order denying his second Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition following a hearing. Appellant argues that the PCRA court erred in rejecting his after-discovered evidence claim. Following our review of the record, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court's opinion.
A jury convicted Appellant of first-degree murder for the shooting death of Curtis Cannon (the victim). On September 23, 2003, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment. This Court affirmed Appellant's judgment of sentence on April 27, 2005, and our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on March 28, 2006.
On December 11, 2006, Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition, his first. The PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The PCRA court issued notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, and later dismissed it. On March 31, 2015, this Court affirmed the denial of Appellant's PCRA petition.
Appellant filed the instant pro se PCRA petition, his second, on November 8, 2016. In it, Appellant asserted that he obtained newly-discovered evidence, which excused his late filing. See PCRA Pet., 11/8/16, at 3-4 & Ex. A. The new evidence was a letter, forwarded from the Pennsylvania Innocence Project to Appellant, from Junious Diggs. In the letter, Diggs claims he committed the murder for which Appellant was convicted. See id. Ex. A. On April 22, 2017, the PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition and requested an evidentiary hearing. Thereafter, Appellant filed a supplemental amended PCRA petition. See Appellant's Sup. Am. PCRA Pet., 11/17/20, at 8-9 & Ex. A.
Appellant attached a letter to his amended petition from Michael Devan, who claimed Appellant was not present at the scene of the murder. See Ex. A.
On March 3, 2020, the PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing on Appellant's after-discovered evidence claim. At the hearing, Diggs admitted that he wrote the letter in question and sent it to the Pennsylvania Innocence Project. See N.T. PCRA Hr'g, 3/3/20, at 21. However, he also testified that his confession was fabricated and that he did not shoot the victim, as he stated in his letter. See id. at 28-29.
In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the PCRA court noted that Appellant's PCRA petition was facially untimely. See PCRA Ct. Op., 9/14/20, at 4. However, the PCRA court concluded that the evidence that formed the basis of Appellant's claim could not have been known before trial, with the exercise of due diligence. See id. at 5. The PCRA court further concluded that the letter Appellant received from the Innocence Project on October 31, 2016, and his petition, filed on November 8, 2016, met the newly discovered evidence exception to the PCRA's timeliness requirement. See id. In addition, the PCRA court determined that Diggs' letter also met the requirements for after discovered evidence. See id. at 5-6. Therefore, the PCRA court had jurisdiction to address Appellant's claim.
Appellant's other witness, Devan, failed to appear at the evidentiary hearing despite being subpoenaed.
The PCRA court denied Appellant's second petition on March 16, 2020. The PCRA court, in relevant part, concluded that Diggs' testimony bore no credible evidentiary value. See Order, 3/16/20. Appellant filed the instant appeal. The PCRA court then ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and he complied.
On the day the PCRA court issued its order dismissing Appellant's second PCRA petition, court operations were suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the PCRA court's order was not docketed until June 15, 2020, which was soon after court operations resumed. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on June 17, 2020. Therefore, we conclude that Appellant timely filed the instant appeal. --------
On appeal, Appellant raises a single issue for our review:
Did the PCRA court err in dismissing Appellant's PCRA [p]etition because Appellant presented compelling newly-discovered evidence in the form of an admission by another culpable individual an the Commonwealth's attempts to rebut that evidence
are based upon firearms evidence which is no longer scientifically accepted?Appellant's Brief at 4.
After reviewing the record, the parties' briefs, and the well-reasoned conclusions of the PCRA court, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court's opinion. See PCRA Ct. Op. at 1-7. Specifically, we note that the PCRA court found that "[t]he information in the letter from Diggs and Diggs' testimony at the evidentiary hearing was fraught with inconsistencies." See id. at 6. For example, Diggs stated in the letter that he "shot and killed a man named Curtis Canon." Id. However, at the evidentiary hearing, Diggs testified that he was not the person who shot the victim. See N.T., PCRA Hr'g, at 29. In addition, Diggs' letter stated that he was at the intersection of Potter and Clearfield Streets where the shooting occurred. See PCRA Pet., Ex. A. However, he testified that he was at the intersection of G Street and Allegheny Avenue, which was some distance away from the murder. See N.T., PCRA Hr'g, at 26-27. Also, contrary to Appellant's argument, the Commonwealth did not use ballistics evidence to impeach Diggs at the evidentiary hearing. See id. at 25. Therefore, we agree with the PCRA court that Appellant's petition merits no relief. Accordingly, we affirm.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/14/21
Image materials not available for display.