Opinion
J-S32012-19 No. 1781 EDA 2018
09-16-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SHELDON HANNIBAL Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 1, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006319-2013 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and MURRAY, J. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.:
Appellant, Sheldon Hannibal, appeals from the order denying his petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
The PCRA court summarized the procedural history of this case as follows:
The PCRA court set forth a detailed account of the facts in this case in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, which we decline to repeat herein. PCRA Opinion, 8/24/18, at 2-4.
On April 29, 2014, following a jury trial before this [c]ourt, [Appellant] was convicted of one count of third-degree murder (18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(c)), one count of conspiracy to commit murder (18 Pa.C.S. §§ 903 & 2502(c)), one count of carrying a firearm without a license (18 Pa.C.S. § 6106), one count of carrying a firearm on a public street in Philadelphia (18 Pa.C.S. § 6108), and one count of possessing an instrument of crime (18 Pa.C.S. § 907). [Appellant] was jointly tried with his co-defendant, William Quattlebaum. On July 7, 2014, the [c]ourt imposed an aggregate
sentence of 30 to 60 years incarceration in state prison. [Appellant] filed post-sentence motions, which the [c]ourt denied on October 23, 2014. [Appellant] was represented at trial, sentencing, and on appeal by Samuel Stretton, Esquire.
On November 23, 2015, the Superior Court affirmed [Appellant's] judgment of sentence, and on March [16], 2016, the Supreme Court denied allocator. [Appellant], through retained counsel, Lonny Fish, Esquire, then filed a petition under the [PCRA] on June 14, 2017.1 On April 13, 2018, the [c]ourt issued notice pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 ("907 Notice") of its intention to dismiss [Appellant's] petition without a hearing. On June 1, 2018, the [c]ourt dismissed [Appellant's] PCRA petition. On that same day, the [c]ourt granted the motion of defense counsel Fish to withdraw, and appointed Gary Server, Esquire, to represent [Appellant] on any appeal from the [c]ourt's dismissal order.
PCRA Court Opinion, 8/24/18, at 1-2. Appellant filed a timely appeal. Appellant and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.1 Defense counsel styled his pleading as a petition for habeas corpus relief and for relief under the PCRA. However, the claims in the petition seek relief only under the PCRA. For that reason, [Appellant's] petition is analyzed herein solely as a PCRA petition.
Appellant's PCRA petition was timely filed. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Appellant's petition for allowance of appeal on March 16, 2016. Commonwealth v. Hannibal , 663 EAL 2015, ___ A.3d ___ (Pa. filed March 16, 2016). From that time, Appellant had ninety days, or until June 14, 2016, to file an appeal with the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c); Commonwealth v. Chambers , 35 A.3d 34, 36 (Pa. Super. 2011). Further, Appellant had one year from June 14, 2016, or until June 14, 2017, to file his PCRA petition.
On appeal, Appellant presents the following issue for our review:
The [c]ourt erred when it dismissed the Petition under the [PCRA] where trial counsel was ineffective for arguing that the Appellant was not acting in self-defense or with an unreasonable belief that he was acting in self-defense where there was evidence
supporting that the Appellant was acting in self-defense or with an unreasonable belief that he was acting in self-defense.Appellant's Brief at 6. More specifically, Appellant argues that there is evidence of record supporting a claim of self-defense. Id. at 14. Accordingly, Appellant asserts that counsel's failure to argue self-defense, and instead take the position at trial that Appellant "was just present in the area," id. at 18, that he "never shot anyone," id. at 16, and that he "never even possessed a firearm on the night of the shooting," id. at 16, resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 13-20.
When reviewing the propriety of an order denying PCRA relief, we consider the record "in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level." Commonwealth v. Stultz , 114 A.3d 865, 872 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting Commonwealth v. Henkel , 90 A.3d 16, 20 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc)). 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).
Our Supreme Court has explained the following in addressing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim:
To prevail in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must overcome the presumption that counsel is effective by establishing all of the following three elements, as set
forth in Commonwealth v. Pierce , 515 Pa. 153, 527 A.2d 973, 975-76 (1987): (1) the underlying legal claim has arguable merit; (2) counsel had no reasonable basis for his or her action or inaction; and (3) the petitioner suffered prejudice because of counsel's ineffectiveness.Commonwealth v. Paddy , 15 A.3d 431, 442 (Pa. 2011).
With regard to the second, reasonable basis-prong, "we do not question whether there were other more logical courses of action which counsel could have pursued; rather, we must examine whether counsel's decisions had any reasonable basis." Commonwealth v. Washington , 927 A.2d 586, 594 (Pa. 2007). We will conclude that counsel's chosen strategy lacked a reasonable basis only if Appellant proves that "an alternative not chosen offered a potential for success substantially greater than the course actually pursued." Commonwealth v. Williams , 899 A.2d 1060, 1064 (Pa. 2006). "In order to meet the prejudice prong of the ineffectiveness standard, a defendant must show that there is a 'reasonable probability that but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.'" Commonwealth v. Reed , 42 A.3d 314, 319 (Pa. Super. 2012).
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel will fail if the petitioner does not meet any of the three prongs. Commonwealth v. Williams , 863 A.2d 505, 513 (Pa. 2004). "The burden of proving ineffectiveness rests with Appellant." Commonwealth v. Rega , 933 A.2d 997, 1018 (Pa. 2007).
Upon review of the issue raised, the certified record, the credibility determinations made by the PCRA court, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable legal authority, we conclude that the PCRA court's thorough and well-crafted opinion entered on August 24, 2018, comprehensively and correctly disposes of Appellant's issue. Accordingly, we affirm the PCRA court's order dismissing Appellant's PCRA petition, and we do so based on the PCRA court's opinion. The parties are directed to attach a copy of that opinion in the event of further proceedings in this matter.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/16/19
Image materials not available for display.