Opinion
1950 EDA 2020 J-S23026-21
09-17-2021
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NATHANIEL JOHNSON Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 16, 2020, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51- CR-0003440-2011.
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J. [*]
JUDGMENT ORDER
KUNSELMAN, J.
Nathaniel Johnson appeals from the order denying his first timely petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. We affirm.
The PCRA court summarized the pertinent facts and procedural history as follows:
[The victim] was eleven years old when [Johnson] raped her. She was eighteen years old when she testified at trial. In the summer of 2007, she was living with her mother, two brothers, and aunt. She spent many weekends with her godfather Eric and his mother, "Gammie." Usually, Eric would pick [the victim] up and bring her to Gammie's house. On one occasion that summer, [Johnson]-Eric's brother- picked [the victim] up. Instead of bringing her directly to Gammie's house, however, [Johnson] first brought her to his apartment. Once inside, he removed [the victim's] clothing and penetrated her vagina with his penis. After the assault, [Johnson] took her to Gammie's house. [The victim] did not initially report the assault to anyone. She told her mother that she did not want anyone to take her to Gammie's house. When her mother told her she could not go without an adult, [the victim's] behavior began to change. She became angry and aggressive, and her relationship with her mother and father became strained. When she was thirteen, [the victim] showed a social worker a page from her diary recounting the rape. The assault was reported to the Department of Human Services and the Special Victims Unit.
On January 16, 2015, a jury found [Johnson] guilty of rape of a child, unlawful contact with a minor, unlawful restraint, corruption of minors, and indecent assault. [The trial court] deferred sentencing for completion of a presentence investigation, mental health evaluation, and evaluation by the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board ("SOAB"). [After a hearing, the trial court found that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proving that Johnson met the criteria of a sexually violent predator]. On December 9, 2015, [the trial court] sentenced [Johnson] to an aggregate term of 25 to 50 years of incarceration. [Johnson] filed a post-sentence motion on December 11, 2015, which [the trial court] denied on March 31, 2016.PCRA Court Opinion, 2/9/21, at 1-2 (citations and footnotes omitted).
Johnson filed a timely appeal to this Court. On June 28, 2018, we rejected Johnson's illegal sentence claim and affirmed his judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 193 A.3d 1121 (Pa. Super. 2018) (non-precedential decision). Johnson did not seek further review.
On February 12, 2019, Johnson filed a pro se PCRA petition, and the PCRA court appointed counsel. On November 18, 2019, PCRA counsel filed an amended PCRA petition. Thereafter, the Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss the petition. On August 12, 2020, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to dismiss Johnson's PCRA petition without a hearing. Johnson did not file a response. By order entered September 16, 2020, the PCRA court denied Johnson's petition. This timely appeal followed. Both Johnson and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Johnson raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Whether the PCRA court erred by dismissing the PCRA petition when clear and convincing evidence was presented that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present available defense witnesses; failing to provide notice of an alibi defense and present alibi evidence and witness; failing to present exculpatory defense evidence; failing to litigate a Rule 600 motion; failing to object to the admissibility of evidence and amendments to the bills of information; and refusing to allow [Johnson] to testify in his own defense.
2. Whether the PCRA court erred by dismissing [Johnson's] PCRA petition when clear and convincing evidence was presented that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue claims challenging both the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence.
3. Whether the PCRA court erred by dismissing the PCRA petition when clear and convincing evidence was presented of violations of [Johnson's] constitutional rights at trial and on direct appeal.
4. Whether the PCRA court erred by dismissing [Johnson's] PCRA petition because the trial court issued an illegal sentence by imposing a third-strike sentence enhancement despite [Johnson] never previously being sentenced as a second strike offender, and by the punitive registration requirement of SORNA which violated [Johnson's] due process rights and extended the length of the sentence beyond the statutory maximum.
5. Whether the PCRA court erred by failing to grant an evidentiary hearing.
Johnson's Brief at 9.
This Court's standard of review regarding an order dismissing a petition under the PCRA is to ascertain whether "the determination of the PCRA court is supported by the evidence of record and is free of legal error. The PCRA court's findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in the certified record." Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185, 191-92 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted).
The PCRA court has discretion to dismiss a petition without a hearing when the court is satisfied that there are no genuine issues concerning any material fact, the defendant is not entitled to post-conviction collateral relief, and no legitimate purpose would be served by further proceedings. To obtain a reversal of a PCRA court's decision to dismiss a petition without a hearing, an appellant must show that he raised a genuine issue of material fact which, if resolved in his favor, would have entitled him to relief, or that the court otherwise abused its discretion in denying a hearing.Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739, 750 (Pa. 2014) (citations omitted).
Here, the PCRA court has authored a thorough and well-reasoned opinion supporting the denial of post-conviction relief. The Honorable Donna M. Woelpper has addressed each of Johnson's claims with proper citation to legal authorities and citation to the certified record. We discern no legal errors in Judge Woelpper's analysis and conclusion that each claim is either without merit, waived, or previously litigated under the PCRA. As such, we adopt Judge Woelpper's opinion as our own in affirming the order denying Johnson post-conviction relief. See PCRA Court's Opinion, 2/9/21, at 3-21 (concluding that each of Johnson's claims of ineffectiveness regarding trial and appellate counsel had no merit); and at 22 (concluding Johnson's challenge to his sentencing as a "third strike" was previously litigated under the PCRA and citing Commonwealth v. Lacombe, 234 A.3d 602 (Pa. 2020) for the proposition that Subchapter I of SORNA does not constitute criminal punishment).
The parties are directed to attach Judge Woelpper's February 9, 2021, opinion to this memorandum in any future appeal.
Finally, because we agree with Judge Woelpper that Johnson's postconviction claims did not warrant an evidentiary hearing, Johnson's claim to the contrary fails. Blakeney supra.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
[*] Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.