Opinion
No. 861 EDA 2020 No. 862 EDA 2020
12-10-2021
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Darrell HUNTER, Appellant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Darrell Hunter, Appellant
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:
Appellant, Darrell Hunter, appeals from the order entered on February 6, 2020, which dismissed his petition filed under the Post-Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541 - 9546. We affirm.
We previously summarized the underlying facts of this case:
Appellant's charges stem from an altercation between him and the mother of his three daughters, Nikkisha Whitfield, on January 13, 2014. Appellant and Ms. Whitfield had arranged for Appellant to spend time with his daughters and Ms. Whitfield's oldest son while she was absent from her home. When Ms. Whitfield left for the afternoon, Appellant was already waiting outside her house. He followed Ms. Whitfield to her bus stop, but did not get on the bus with her. Ms. Whitfield sensed Appellant was angry at that time.
When Ms. Whitfield returned home on the bus four or five hours later, Appellant was waiting for her at the bus stop. Perceiving that Appellant's anger had intensified in the interim, Ms. Whitfield decided to go to a neighborhood bar, deeming it safer to be in a crowd. Appellant followed Ms. Whitfield to the bar, and began drinking and making angry threats to other patrons. As a result of Appellant's behavior, Ms. Whitfield decided to exit the bar through its back door. She returned home using an alleyway running behind her house. As Ms. Whitfield entered her backyard, Appellant emerged from the backdoor of her house and physically assaulted her, causing injuries to her face, ribs, arms, elbow, and knee. When one of the children opened the backdoor, Appellant fled.
Ms. Whitfield entered her house, barricaded the backdoor with a chair, and directed her daughter to call the police. While the police were standing on Ms. Whitfield's front porch, Appellant attempted to enter the house through the barricaded backdoor. With his body halfway into the house, Appellant threatened and attempted to harm Ms. Whitfield and their children. He fled when police officers began pursuit. Following a short chase, Appellant was apprehended and arrested.
Later that evening, Ms. Whitfield contacted police to report that Appellant had called her from a telephone located in the cell where he was being held, and again threatened her and the children. She stated that Appellant was on the other line at that moment, and when an officer investigated, Appellant was indeed using the telephone in the holding cell. Over the next four months, while he was awaiting trial on the charges arising from his assault on Ms. Whitfield, Appellant continued to contact Ms. Whitfield, both over the phone and via letters. In these communications, he threatened Ms. Whitfield, entreated her to either drop the charges or refuse to testify in court, and offered her money in exchange for doing so.
Commonwealth v. Hunter, 159 A.3d 47 (Pa. Super. 2016) (unpublished memorandum) at 1-3.
After a bench trial, the trial court found Appellant guilty intimidation of a witness or victim, burglary, simple assault, and two counts of terroristic threats. On January 9, 2015, the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve an aggregate term of eight to 16 years in prison, followed by ten years of probation, for his convictions. We affirmed Appellant's judgment of sentence on October 19, 2016; Appellant did not file a petition for allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court. Id. at 1-9.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 4952(a)(1), 3502(a)(1), 2701(a), 2706(a)(1), respectively.
On October 31, 2016, Appellant filed a timely, pro se PCRA petition. The PCRA court appointed counsel to represent Appellant during the proceedings and counsel later filed an amended petition on Appellant's behalf. The amended petition raised a number of claims, including that trial counsel was ineffective for: failing to file a post-sentence motion that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; failing investigate and present witnesses; failing to file a motion to reconsider the sentence; advising Appellant not to testify; not pursing the defense Appellant wanted; failing to object to statements made by a witness; failing to move for a mistrial because of statements made by a witness; failing to object to impermissible statements made by the judge during trial; and, failing to introduce evidence showing that Appellant lived at the address in question. See Amended PCRA Petition, 6/27/18, at 4.
The PCRA court held a hearing, limited solely to Appellant's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present witnesses. See PCRA Court Order, 6/14/19, at 1; PCRA Hearing, 1/9/20, at 1-50. On February 6, 2020, the PCRA court entered a final order, which denied the entirety of Appellant's PCRA petition. PCRA Court Order, 2/6/20, at 1. Appellant filed timely notices of appeal at both docket numbers. He raises the following claims to this Court:
After Appellant filed his PCRA petition, the case was assigned to the Honorable Diana L. Anhalt. On June 14, 2019, Judge Anhalt entered an order that dismissed all but one of Appellant's claims without holding a hearing. See PCRA Court Order, 6/14/19, at 1. The June 14, 2019 order granted Appellant an evidentiary hearing on the lone claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present certain witnesses. See id.
On September 6, 2019, Judge Anhalt recused herself from the case and the case was reassigned to the Honorable Leon W. Tucker. On January 9, 2020, Judge Tucker held a hearing on Appellant's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present certain witnesses. Judge Tucker then denied Appellant's PCRA petition on February 6, 2020. See PCRA Court Order, 2/6/20, at 1.
After Appellant filed his notice of appeal, Judge Tucker requested that we remand this case to the PCRA court, so that the PCRA court could "thoroughly] review [ ] all the issues before and after [Judge Anhalt's] recusal." See PCRA Court Opinion, 7/7/20, at 1. On August 12, 2021, we remanded the case for this limited purpose and, on October 12, 2021, Judge Tucker filed his supplemental opinion, where he thoroughly and ably addressed all of Appellant's claims.
[1.] Whether the [PCRA] court erred in denying [Appellant's] PCRA petition without an evidentiary hearing on the issues raised in the amended PCRA petition regarding trial counsel's ineffectiveness[?]
[2.] Whether the [PCRA] court was in error in not granting relief on the issue that counsel was ineffective for the following reasons:
A. Counsel was ineffective for failing to file a post[-]verdict motion that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
B. Counsel was ineffective for failing to properly represent Appellant at trial.
i. Counsel did not pursue the defense Appellant wanted presented.
ii. Counsel never objected or moved for a mistrial to statements made by the witness.
iii. Counsel was ineffective for failing to object to impermissible statements made by the judge during trial and for failure to motion for a mistrial.
iv. Counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce evidence showing [Appellant] resided at [the address in question].
C. Counsel failed to present and investigate witnesses.
D. Counsel was ineffective for failure to file a motion for reconsideration of sentence.
E. Counsel was ineffective for advising Appellant not to testify.
Appellant's Brief at 8 and 16-33.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified record, the notes of testimony, and the opinion of the able PCRA court judge, the Honorable Leon W. Tucker. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief in this case, for the reasons expressed in Judge Tucker's October 12, 2021 opinion. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge Tucker's thorough opinion and adopt it as our own. In any future filing with this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge Tucker's October 12, 2021 opinion.
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Appendix
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?