From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Edwards

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 9, 2016
No. 2755 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 9, 2016)

Opinion

J. S38012/16 No. 2755 EDA 2015

09-09-2016

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DONTEY EDWARDS, Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the PCRA Order, August 28, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No. CP-51-CR-0006809-2009 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OLSON AND JENKINS, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:

Dontey Edwards appeals from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County that dismissed his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546 ("PCRA").

The trial court set forth the facts of this case:

On December 31, 2008, in the early afternoon, Eldridge Wesley ("Wesley") was outside with his cousin, Michael Walker ("Walker"), on the 1300 block of West Wishart Street. Malik Miles ("Miles") yelled at Wesley from down the street and, in response, Wesley began to approach Miles. As the two men began to talk, Wesley told Walker to walk down the street away from where he and Miles were standing, and Walker complied. Miles and Wesley proceeded to get into a "heated argument" over who was allowed to be out on that particular block selling drugs. While Miles and Wesley were arguing, Dontey Edwards ("Edwards") was standing near
Miles, but did not say anything to Wesley. In an attempt to end the conflict, Wesley "flagged" Miles and began walking away. As he looked back over his shoulder, Wesley saw Miles pull a black handgun from his pocket; Edwards had a black and chrome gun in his hand. Both Miles and Edwards began to shoot at Wesley. As Wesley began to run, he was shot in the leg and fell to the ground. Wesley kept moving on the ground, trying to seek cover, and was shot numerous times throughout his legs and abdomen. As Walker heard the shots, he saw Edwards begin to shoot at him and he ran away from the direction of the gunfire. Walker then ran toward Wesley when he saw him lying in the street and Wesley stated "Malik shot me" before losing consciousness.

At approximately 1:00 p.m. Officers Sneed and Stallbaum were traveling northbound on 13th Street while on their way to Temple Hospital. The officers were hailed by a male and a female who told them of a commotion just south of their location and as Officer Stallbaum was reversing the vehicle, they heard six (6) to eight (8) gunshots. The officers drove in the direction of the gunshots and when they arrived at the 1300 block of West Wishart Street moments later they found approximately thirty people running and screaming. The officers found Wesley unconscious, lying face up on the ground, covered in blood, with multiple gunshot wounds. They placed Wesley in their vehicle and rushed him to the Temple Hospital emergency room. Walker got in his brother's vehicle and began to drive to the hospital, but was stopped by Officers Ramos and Slobodian before he left the area. Officer Sneed stayed at the hospital until approximately 7:00 p.m., when a nurse provided him with a projectile that had been removed from Wesley's body and gave him an update that Wesley was in critical but stable condition.

Officers Waters and Frysiek responded to the radio call for a shooting on the 1300 block of West Wishart Street. They received flash
information for a "black male, medium build, wearing [a] greenish-brown hoodie [and] tan pants" whose name was Malik. The officers surveyed the area until an anonymous tip drew their attention to 3133 Camac Street. They radioed their location and then Officer Waters secured the front of the property while Officer Frysiek went to secure the rear. Officer Waters testified that the property appeared to be abandoned, as the outside was rundown, the front door could not be secured, the upstairs windows were broken, and the interior, as seen through a front window, was completely dilapidated. Officer Waters observed a male matching the flash description inside the property and as soon as backup officers arrived, less than one minute later, they knocked and entered through the unsecured door. As they entered, a couple of males were running up the stairs. Officer Waters observed Miles toss a small baggie to the floor as he was running up the steps and Officer Waters detained Miles just before he reached the second floor. The officer brought Miles back downstairs and recovered the baggie, which contained an off-white chunky substance, alleged[ly] crack cocaine.

From the rear of the property, Officer Frysiek observed a black male, later identified as Edwards, perched from a second floor rear window. The officer ordered him to stop, but Edwards jumped from the window. Officer Frysiek radioed a description of Edwards as "black male, black hoodie, orange shirt, blue jeans, and I believe tan boots." Officer Coulter was sitting in his vehicle in a perimeter position, when he observed the highway unit chasing a male, wearing a black hoodie, orange shirt, blue jeans and tan boots, on foot northbound up 12th Street. The officer proceeded northbound on 12th Street in his vehicle, following the male until the male made a right hand turn into an alleyway. Officer Coulter exited his vehicle, pursued the male up the alleyway on foot, arrested the male, and then Officer Frysiek identified him as the male who had jumped from the window.
Dr. Amy Goldberg is the Chief of Trauma and Surgical Critical Care at Temple University Hospital and she was qualified to testify as an expert in the field of medical trauma and critical care. Dr. Goldberg was one of many trauma surgeons who treated Wesley, upon his arrival at the hospital on December 31, 2008. Upon arrival, Wesley "had no blood pressure and was not breathing on his own and his heart rate was very, very slow." Among other gunshot wounds, Wesley had been shot through the femoral artery in his right thigh and had lost a significant amount of blood. Dr. Goldberg testified that with such trauma he could have bled out "within minutes" and that if he had not received emergency treatment as soon as he did "he could have died." Wesley was also bleeding from his rectum as well as his anus and he had sustained severe injuries to his bladder, large bowel, and veins within his pelvis. In addition to his abdominal injuries, Wesley suffered significant trauma to his leg bones, which required orthopedic surgeries to correct. Dr. Goldberg estimated that Wesley had undergone eighteen (18) separate surgeries in the course if [sic] his treatment at Temple University Hospital.

Officer Louis Grandizio, a fifteen year veteran of the Philadelphia police force, was qualified to testify as an expert in the field of ballistics and firearms identification. He explained the internal mechanism of a firearm, as well as the various components of a piece of ammunition, and he testified that he was able to match the eleven (11) fired cartridge casings that Detective Etsell had recovered from the scene to three different firearms. Officer Grandizio testified that there were eight (8) 9 millimeter Lugers fired from one firearm, two (2) 9 millimeter Lugers fired from a second firearm, and one (1) .32 automatic fired from a third firearm.
Trial court opinion, 4/28/11 at 3-7 (footnotes omitted).

The PCRA court set forth the following procedural history:

Prior to trial, Edwards and his co-defendant Malik Miles presented a motion for the court to grant a continuance, a motion to appoint a medical expert for the defense, and a motion for recusal, all of which this court denied. On February 16, 2010, Edwards elected to exercise his right to a jury trial and pled not guilty to all charges on bill of information CP-51-CR-0006809-2009. At the close of the Commonwealth's case-in-chief, Edwards made a motion for judgment of acquittal based on the evidence, which this court denied. On February 23, 2010, the jury found Edwards and co-defendant Malik Miles guilty of Attempted Murder (F1), Aggravated Assault (F1), Criminal Conspiracy for Engaging in Aggravated Assault ("Conspiracy") (F1), Carrying Firearms Without a License ("VUFA § 6106") (F3), Possession of an Instrument of Crime (M1), and Recklessly Endangering Another Person (M2).[] At the conclusion of the trial, the case was continued to April 30, 2010 for sentencing. On April 30, 2010, this court sentenced Edwards to 8.5-20 years of incarceration in a state facility for Attempted Murder (F1) and 1.5-3 years of incarceration in a state facility for Carrying Firearms Without a License (F3), to run consecutively. He received no further penalty on the remaining charges.

On May 20, 2010, Edwards filed a notice of appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and the Court affirmed his convictions and judgment of sentence on February 29, 2012. On December 21, 2010, while his appeal was pending, Edwards filed a PCRA petition. This court sent Edwards a 907 Notice, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1), on July 22, 2011 and formally dismissed the petition on August 26, 2011.

On October 29, 2012, Edwards filed the instant PCRA petition and on October 2, 2013, Edwards filed
a Partial Amendment to Post Conviction Relief Petition. PCRA counsel was appointed and, on January 1, 2015, counsel filed an Amended PCRA Petition. On May 19, 2015, the Commonwealth filed a Motion to Dismiss and the matter was first listed before this Court for decision on July 31, 2015. On August 5, 2015, following a review of the record, this Court sent Edwards a 907 Notice, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). This court did not receive any response to the 907 Notice. On August 28, 2015[,] this court dismissed the PCRA petition.
PCRA court opinion, 9/18/15 at 1-2.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 901(a), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903(a)(1), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a)(1), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(a), and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705, respectively.

Appellant raises the following issues for this court's review:

I. Whether the judge was in error in denying the Appellant's PCRA petition without an evidentiary hearing on the issues raised in the amended PCRA petition regarding trial counsel's ineffectiveness[?]

II. Whether the Judge was in error in not granting relief on the PCRA petition alleging counsel was ineffective[?]
Appellant's brief at 8.

With respect to whether the PCRA court erred when it did not grant relief on the PCRA petition that alleged trial and appellate counsel were ineffective, the PCRA court has ably and thoroughly addressed these issues in its opinion of September 18, 2015. This court will affirm on the basis of that opinion.

We have foregone the sequence of appellant's arguments.

With respect to whether the PCRA court erred when it denied the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing, this court affirms.

In PCRA appeals, our scope of review "is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence on the record of the PCRA court's hearing, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party." Commonwealth v. Sam , 952 A.2d 565, 573 (Pa. 2008) (internal quotation omitted). Because most PCRA appeals involve questions of fact and law, we employ a mixed standard of review. Commonwealth v. Pitts , 981 A.2d 875, 878 (Pa. 2009). We defer to the PCRA court's factual findings and credibility determinations supported by the record. Commonwealth v. Henkel , 90 A.3d 16, 20 (Pa.Super. 2014) ( en banc ). In contrast, we review the PCRA court's legal conclusions de novo. Id.

[T]he right to an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction petition is not absolute. Commonwealth v. Jordan , 772 A.2d 1011, 1014 (Pa.Super. 2001). It is within the PCRA court's discretion to decline to hold a hearing if the petitioner's claim is patently frivolous and has no support either in the record or other evidence. Id. It is the responsibility of the reviewing court on appeal to examine each issue raised in the PCRA petition in light of the record certified before it in order to determine if the PCRA court erred in its determination that there were no genuine issues of material fact in controversy and in denying relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Commonwealth v. Hardcastle , 701 A.2d 541, 542-543 (Pa. 1997).

Commonwealth v. Turetsky , 925 A.2d 876, 882 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied , 940 A.2d 365
(Pa. 2007) quoting Commonwealth v. Kalifah , 852 A.2d 1238, 1239-1240 (Pa.Super. 2004).
Commonwealth v. Wah , 42 A.3d 335, 338 (Pa.Super. 2012).

Here, the PCRA court determined from the record before it that the issues raised by appellant lacked merit and that it had no need to conduct a hearing and did not err when it declined to conduct a hearing.

Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/9/2016

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Edwards

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 9, 2016
No. 2755 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 9, 2016)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Edwards

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DONTEY EDWARDS, Appellant

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Sep 9, 2016

Citations

No. 2755 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 9, 2016)