Commonwealth v. Buckley

258 A.3d 487 (Table)

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.Charles BUCKLEY, Appellant

No. 800 EDA 2020

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed June 1, 2021

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.:

Appellant Charles Buckley appeals from the order denying his timely first petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act¹ (PCRA). Appellant argues that the PCRA court erred in denying his motion for discovery and in rejecting his claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admissibility of DNA evidence and failing to request a mistrial.² Following our review of the record, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court's opinion.

We adopt the PCRA court's summary of the facts underlying this matter. See PCRA Ct. Op., 5/18/20, at 2-4. Briefly, Appellant was charged with numerous crimes related to the murder of Tanisha Finch and attempted murder of Rahim Hartzog. The matter proceeded to trial, and at its conclusion, the jury found Appellant guilty of first-degree murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, and carrying a firearm in public in Philadelphia.³ The trial court sentenced Appellant to a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction, a consecutive term of ten to twenty years of incarceration for attempted murder, and a consecutive term of two and one-half to five years of incarceration for carrying a firearm in public in Philadelphia. The aggravated assault conviction merged for sentencing purposes.

Appellant filed post-sentence motions, which the trial court denied on November 7, 2014. Appellant filed a timely direct appeal. On December 11, 2015, we affirmed Appellant's judgment of sentence, and on April 16, 2016, our Supreme Court denied Appellant's petition for allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Buckley, 3492 EDA 2014, 2015 WL 8550476 (Pa. Super. filed Dec. 11, 2015) (unpublished memo.), appeal denied, 136 A.3d 978 (Pa. 2016).

Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition on July 27, 2016. The PCRA court subsequently appointed counsel to represent Appellant on May 19, 2017. On January 22, 2019, Appellant filed a counseled motion for discovery pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(E)(1). In the discovery motion, Appellant requested forensic examination of an iPhone bearing the telephone number 267-622-1502, which Appellant alleged was in police custody. The PCRA court denied the motion for discovery on April 11, 2019.

Thereafter, counsel filed an amended PCRA petition on August 22, 2019. In the amended PCRA petition, Appellant asserted that trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to object to the admissibility of DNA evidence, specifically the use of Probabilistic Genotyping Statistics; (2) failing to move for a mistrial after a third-party spoke to a juror outside the courthouse; and (3) failing to obtain Appellant's parole file and cross-examine Appellant's State Parole Agent regarding the iPhone with the telephone number 267-622-1502.⁴ PCRA Pet., 8/22/19, at ¶¶ 8-18.

On January 13, 2020, the PCRA court issued a notice of its intent to dismiss the PCRA petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. On February 3, 2020, the PCRA court denied Appellant's PCRA petition. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on March 1, 2020. Both the PCRA court and Appellant complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues for review:

1. The PCRA court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion when it denied Appellant's [request] for a new trial [based on trial counsel's alleged ineffectiveness in failing to] object to the admission of DNA evidence obtained from a hooded sweatshirt located near the scene of the crime.

2. The PCRA court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion when it denied Appellant's [request] for a new trial [based on trial counsel's alleged ineffectiveness in failing to] request a mistrial, or, in the alternative, to have the [trial court] interview each juror regarding third party contact with the jury during deliberations.

3. The PCRA court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion when it denied Appellant's Discovery Motion requesting that the Police Department conduct a forensic analysis of [Appellant's iPhone with telephone number 267-622-1502 which was allegedly] held in evidence.

Appellant's Brief at 4 (some formatting altered).

Following our review of the record, the parties' briefs, and the well-reasoned conclusions of the PCRA court, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court's opinion.⁵ See PCRA Ct. Op., 5/18/20, at 1-13. We agree with the PCRA court that Appellant was not entitled to discovery and that he failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. See id. Accordingly, we affirm.

Order affirmed.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA

CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CHARLES BUCKLEY

CP-51-CR-0011223-2012

800 EDA 2020

OPINION

Rose Marie DeFino-Nastasi, J.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

May 18, 2020

On May 17, 2012, Charles Buckley (the "Petitioner") shot and killed Tanisha Finch (the "decedent") while attempting to kill Rahim Hartzog. On July 28, 2014, the Petitioner was found guilty by a jury, presided over by this Court, of first-degree murder,¹ attempted murder,² aggravated assault,³ and VUFA § 6108.⁴ On October 10, 2014, the Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for first-degree murder, along with consecutive sentences of ten to twenty years' imprisonment and two-and-one-half to five years' imprisonment for attempted murder and VUFA § 6108 respectively.

On October 20, 2014 the Petitioner filed a Post-Sentence Motion. On October 22, 2014, the Petitioner filed a Supplemental Post-Sentence Motion. On November 6, 2014, the Post Sentence Motions were denied. On December 5, 2014, the Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court. On December 11, 2015, the Superior Court affirmed the Petitioner's sentence. On January 4, 2016, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On April 6, 2016, allocatur was denied.

On July 27, 2016, the Petitioner filed a Post-Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA") Petition. On May 22, 2017, PCRA Counsel was appointed. On January 22, 2019, PCRA Counsel filed a Motion for Discovery. On August 22, 2019, the Petitioner filed an Amended PCRA Petition. On October 24, 2019, the Commonwealth filed a Motion to Dismiss the PCRA Petition. The PCRA Petition was denied by this court on January 9, 2020. The Petitioner filed an Appeal to the Superior Court on March 1, 2020. The Petitioner filed a Statement of Matters Complained of Pursuant to Rule 1925(b) on March 30, 2020 raising the following issues:

1. That the PCRA Court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion when it denied [the Petitioner's] sought after PCRA relief asking for a new trial because of trial counsel's failure to object to the admission of DNA evidence obtained from a hooded sweatshirt located near the scene of the crime.

2. That the PCRA Court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion when it denied [the Petitioner's] sought-after PCRA relief asking for a new trial because of trial counsel's failure to request a mistrial, or, in the alternative, to have the Court interview each juror regarding third party contact with the jury during jury deliberations.

3. That the PCRA Court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion when it denied [the Petitioner's] Discovery Motion requesting that the Police Department conduct a forensic analysis of [the Petitioner's] cell phone held in evidence.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Superior Court summarized the facts as follows:

On May 17, 2012, [the Petitioner] shot and killed Tanisha Finch [the decedent] while attempting to kill Rahim Hartzog.

Mr. Hartzog and [the Petitioner] had been acquaintances for over ten years, during which they sold drugs together. In January 2012, Mr. Hartzog stopped selling drugs because he became engaged to the [decedent]. Ultimately, however, he lost his job and started selling drugs again. Although he was not selling drugs with [the Petitioner], he sold drugs to many of the same customers.

Ms. Karen Monk, one of Mr. Hartzog and [the Petitioner's] customers, testified at trial that she contacted [the Petitioner] on the day of the shooting because she wanted to buy drugs on credit. [The Petitioner] told Ms. Monk to call Mr. Hartzog and tell him that she had $100.00 to buy drugs from him, although, as Ms. Monk testified at trial, she only had at most twenty dollars. Ms. Monk called Mr. Hartzog and arranged to meet him at the Getty gas station on Mr. Airy Avenue in Philadelphia.

Mr. Hartzog and the [decedent] drove together and parked outside Ms. Monk's apartment complex across the street from the gas station. When Ms. Monk walked up to Mr. Hartzog's vehicle, she handed the [decedent] a one dollar bill. After Mr. Hartzog told her that she had only given him one dollar instead of $100.00, Ms. Monk ran back towards her apartment.

Soon after Ms. Monk ran away, the [decedent] told Mr. Hartzog that somebody suspicious was walking on the sidewalk approaching their vehicle. Mr. Hartzog testified at trial that he saw a person a few car lengths behind his vehicle who had a hood on and hands in the front pocket of his sweatshirt. As the person walked closer, Mr. Hartzog recognized it was [the Petitioner] and started to drive away. As Mr. Hartzog drove away, [the Petitioner] started shooting at Mr. Hartzog's vehicle, hitting the [decedent] in the head with one of his shots.

After dropping the [decedent] off at the hospital, Mr. Hartzog spoke with the police, told them that he was there when the shooting occurred, and provided a description of the shooter. Initially, Mr. Hartzog did not identify [the Petitioner] as the shooter to the police because there is a "no snitch rule on the streets, however, he eventually admitted to detectives that [the Petitioner] was the person who shot at him and the [decedent].

At trial, Ms. Chaquita Nabried testified

...