Opinion
J-S74017-18 No. 2020 EDA 2018
02-08-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. EMMANUAL YATES Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order entered May 16, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No: CP-23-CR-0008091-2013 BEFORE: LAZARUS, STABILE, and McLAUGHLIN, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:
Appellant, Emmanuel Yates, appeals form the May 16, 2018 order dismissing his petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. We affirm.
The PCRA court recited the pertinent facts and procedural history.
On June 19, 2014, following a jury trial before the Honorable Gregory M. Mallon, Appellant was found guilty of robbery, criminal conspiracy to robbery, and possessing an instrument of crime. He was sentenced on August 13, 2014 to an aggregate term of seventy-nine (79) to one hundred fifty-eight (158) months of incarceration followed by ten (10) years' probation. The day before trial, defense counsel filed a 'Motion in limine for Correct Information Regarding the Alleged Victim, Abdul Diara's Immigration Status and Criminal History.' The motion requested the court to order the victim to submit to a fingerprint scan by the Criminal Investigation Division of the District Attorney's Office to establish his true identity. The purpose of said request was to establish if the victim had a criminal record for crimen falsi which the defense could use at trial to challenge the victim's truthfulness. During pre-trial investigation, counsel had
discovered there was a man with the same name as the victim, living in Philadelphia who had a criminal record and therefore requested a fingerprint scan of the victim to determine if the victim was who he purported to be or was in reality the other man in Philadelphia with a criminal record for crimen falsi. In the motion, defense counsel also recognized that the Commonwealth had provided defense counsel with the victim's full name, date of birth, address, social security number, and the fact that the victim did not have a criminal abstract.PCRA Court Opinion, 8/13/2018, at 1-2.
The court held argument on the Motion on June 17 and June 18, 2014. The court accepted exhibits, including photographs of the two men, and heard argument. The court also questioned the victim, outside the presence of the jury about his date of birth, criminal history, and immigration status. The court initially agreed to fingerprint the victim, but after the victim testified under oath and after the court received enlarged photographs of both men, the court denied the request to fingerprint the victim.
On October 25, 2015, this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence. Appellant did not seek allowance of appeal in our Supreme Court. On October 11, 2016, he filed his timely first PCRA petition. Appointed counsel filed an amended petition on August 23, 2017 asserting that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the victim's identity and criminal history sooner than one day before trial. On April 18, 2018, the PCRA court issued its Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing. On May 16, 2018, the PCRA court entered the order on appeal.
In PCRA appeals, our scope of review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence on the record of the PCRA court's hearing, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Because most PCRA appeals involve questions of fact and law, we employ a mixed standard of review. We defer to the PCRA court's factual findings and credibility determinations
supported by the record. In contrast, we review the PCRA court's legal conclusions de novo.Commonwealth v. Reyes-Rodriguez , 111 A.3d 775, 779 (Pa. Super. 2015).
The sole issue before us is whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the victim's identity sooner. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a PCRA petitioner must plead and prove that the underlying claim is of arguable merit; that counsel had no strategic basis for the disputed action or inaction; and that counsel's error prejudiced the petitioner. Reyes-Rodriguez , 111 A.3d at 779-80. Counsel is presumed effective, and the petitioner bears the burden of proving otherwise. Id.
Instantly, the record plainly reflects that the underlying issue lacks arguable merit, and that Appellant suffered no prejudice from counsel's failure to raise the issue sooner than one day before trial. The trial court conducted a hearing on the victim's identity and found that the victim has the same name as another individual living in the Philadelphia area. The other individual had a criminal history, but the victim did not. Since the victim had no criminal history, Appellant would have gained nothing had counsel raised the issue sooner than one day before trial. The PCRA court's opinion of August 13, 2018 explains the trial court's findings and the lack of merit in Appellant's argument. We affirm the order based on that opinion. In the event of any further proceedings, the parties shall attach a copy of the August 13, 2018 opinion to their filings.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 2/8/19
Image materials not available for display.