Opinion
J-S17043-17 No. 1237 EDA 2016
04-19-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, v. CHRISTOPHER FLENOURY, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order April 5, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, No(s): CP-51-CR-1301989-2006 BEFORE: OLSON, STABILE and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
Christopher Flenoury ("Flenoury") appeals from the Order dismissing his first Petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
The PCRA court summarized the relevant underlying facts in its Opinion, which we incorporate herein by reference. See PCRA Court Opinion, 5/24/16, at 2.
In June 2010, a jury convicted Flenoury of first-degree murder and related firearms offenses, for which he received an aggregate sentence of life in prison. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Flenoury , 37 A.3d 1240 (Pa. Super. 2011) (unpublished memorandum). Flenoury did not seek allowance of appeal with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
On January 19, 2012, Flenoury filed the instant, timely, first PCRA Petition, pro se. The PCRA court appointed Flenoury counsel, who thereafter filed an Amended PCRA Petition in July 2015. The PCRA court then issued a Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907 Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Petition without an evidentiary hearing. On April 5, 2016, the PCRA court dismissed Flenoury's Petition, after which Flenoury timely filed a Notice of Appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of errors complained of on appeal.
Flenoury now presents the following issue for our review: "Did the Honorable PCRA court err when it failed to grant [Flenoury] relief on his PCRA Petition[,] even though he pled and proved that he was entitled to relief?" Brief for Appellant at 3.
We begin by noting our well-settled standard of review: "In reviewing the [dismissal] of PCRA relief, we examine whether the PCRA court's determination is supported by the record and free of legal error." Commonwealth v. Miller , 102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). "The scope of review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the trial level." Id. (citation omitted).
Flenoury bases his claim of PCRA court error on newly-discovered facts, in the form of an Affidavit executed by Nicodemo DiPietro ("DiPietro"). Brief for Appellant at 8-9. DiPietro's Affidavit stated that one of the Commonwealth's key witnesses at Flenoury's trial, Antonio Lindsay ("Lindsay"), gave false testimony in an attempt to curry favor with the Commonwealth. Id. at 9 (asserting that "[i]n essence, [the Affidavit states that DiPietro, a prisoner,] had spoken to [] Lindsay in the prison[,] and [Lindsay] conceded that he had come into possession of [Flenoury's] discovery materials and was going to use those discovery materials to lie on [sic] [Flenoury] and win himself ... concessions regarding his prison stay."). Flenoury avers that this evidence could not have been discovered earlier; would not be used solely to impeach the credibility of Lindsay; and would likely compel a different verdict. Id. at 10. Finally, Flenoury argues that the PCRA court improperly dismissed his PCRA Petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 8.
In its Opinion, the PCRA court summarized the law concerning claims of newly-discovered evidence, thoroughly addressed Flenoury's claim, and determined that it lacks merit. See PCRA Court Opinion, 5/24/16, at 3-7. We agree with the reasoning and determination of the PCRA court, and affirm on this basis as to Flenoury's sole issue on appeal. See id .
Order affirmed.
Judge Stabile joins the memorandum.
Judge Olson concurs in the result. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/19/2017
Image materials not available for display.