Opinion
J-S66015-18 No. 4043 EDA 2017
12-19-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. CARL JOHNSON Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order November 20, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0011742-2009 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, Carl Johnson, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his first petition timely filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
In its opinion, the PCRA court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
THE PCRA COURT ERRED BY NOT GRANTING [APPELLANT] AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING. [APPELLANT'S] PCRA PETITION RAISED MATERIAL ISSUES OF DISPUTED FACTS REGARDING TRIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION OR LACK THEREOF. NAMELY, [APPELLANT] ALLEGED TRIAL COUNSEL NEVER INTERVIEWED HIS ALIBI WITNESS, VERONICA THOMAS, BEFORE TRIAL COUNSEL ADVISED HIM NOT TO PRESENT WITNESSES ON HIS BEHALF ONCE
THE COMMONWEALTH PRESENTED ITS CASE-IN-CHIEF. THE RECORD, IN OTHER WORDS, WAS INADEQUATE TO SUMMARILY REJECT [APPELLANT'S] TRIAL COUNSEL INEFFECTIVENESS CLAIM, REQUIRING THE TRIAL COURT TO HOLD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING. U.S. CONST. ADMTS. 6, 14; PA. CONST. ART. I §§ 8, 9.(Appellant's Brief at 3-4).
THE PCRA COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND [APPELLANT] KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO PRESENT VERONICA THOMAS AS AN ALIBI WITNESS BASED ON THE ON-THE-RECORD COLLOQUY THE TRIAL COURT HAD WITH [APPELLANT] AFTER THE COMMONWEALTH PRESENTED ITS CASE-IN-CHIEF. TRIAL COUNSEL NEVER INTERVIEWED VERONICA THOMAS. TRIAL COUNSEL, THEREFORE, COULD NOT GAUGE HER CREDIBILITY AND BELIEVABILITY. THE ABSENCE OF THIS INVESTIGATION AND INFORMATION PREVENTED TRIAL COUNSEL FROM INTELLIGENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY ADVISING [APPELLANT] NOT TO PRESENT WITNESSES ON HIS BEHALF. IN OTHER WORDS, [APPELLANT] DID NOT KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO PRESENT VERONICA THOMAS BASED ON TRIAL COUNSEL'S INADEQUATE AND INEFFECTIVE PRE-TRIAL INVESTIGATION. U.S. CONST. ADMTS. 6, 14; PA. CONST. ART. I §§ 8, 9.
Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to examining whether the evidence of record supports the court's determination and whether its decision is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Conway , 14 A.3d 101 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 612 Pa. 687, 29 A.3d 795 (2011). This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if the record contains any support for those findings. Commonwealth v. Boyd , 923 A.2d 513 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 593 Pa. 754, 932 A.2d 74 (2007). We give no such deference, however, to the court's legal conclusions. Commonwealth v. Ford , 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa.Super. 2012).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Sandy L. V. Byrd, we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The PCRA court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See PCRA Court Opinion, filed April 6, 2018, at 3-6) (finding: Appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails, where Commonwealth presented overwhelming evidence of Appellant's guilt, including eyewitness and motive testimony; therefore, alleged alibi testimony would not have changed outcome of trial; Appellant cannot demonstrate that absence of proposed alibi witness testimony was prejudicial; further, Appellant stated during colloquy with court at trial that he did not want to call any witnesses; even if trial counsel had not interviewed Appellant's proffered alibi witness, Appellant was aware of witness and still knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to call any witnesses). The record supports the court's decision to deny relief without a hearing. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court's opinion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/19/18
Image materials not available for display.