Commonwealth v. Chapman

245 A.3d 1094 (Table)

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Laquanta CHAPMAN, Appellant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Laquanta Chapman, Appellant

No. 175 EDA 2020

No. 176 EDA 2020

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed December 23, 2020

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:

Laquanta Chapman appeals from the November 13, 2019 order, entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, dismissing his petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541 - 9546. After careful review, we affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows:

On October 30, 2008, [appellant] shot and killed his sixteen (16) year-old neighbor, Aaron Turner, in the basement of [appellant's] residence. Subsequently, with the assistance of his younger cousin, Bryan Byrd, [appellant] dismembered the victim's body and disposed of the remains in the trash.

Several weeks later, law enforcement officers investigating the sale of illicit narcotics from [appellant's] premises obtained a warrant to search the premises for evidence of drug activity. In the course of executing that search warrant[,] on November 15, 2008, police discovered an abundance of residual, physical evidence from the killing and dismemberment of Mr. Turner. [Appellant] was arrested and charged with murder and other related offenses, and the Commonwealth tendered notice of its intention to pursue the death penalty.

PCRA court Rule 907 notice of intent to dismiss, 10/8/19 at 2 n.3.

A jury convicted appellant of first-degree murder ¹ and other related offenses on November 9, 2012. The jury subsequently determined that the death penalty should be imposed. See id. Appellant filed a direct appeal with our supreme court pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9711(h)(1). The court affirmed the judgment of sentence, but vacated the imposition of the death penalty and remanded for the trial court to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. See Commonwealth v. Chapman , 136 A.3d 126, 134 (Pa. 2016). Accordingly, the trial court resentenced appellant on August 16, 2016.

Appellant filed a direct appeal from the trial court's resentencing order. A previous panel of this court affirmed appellant's judgment of sentence on March 27, 2018. See Commonwealth v. Chapman , 188 A.3d 565 (Pa.Super. March 27, 2018) (unpublished memorandum). Appellant did not file a petition for allowance of appeal with our supreme court.

Appellant timely filed the instant counseled PCRA petition on March 25, 2019. On October 8, 2019, the PCRA court entered a notice of its intent to dismiss appellant's PCRA petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Appellant did not file a response. On November 13, 2019, the PCRA court entered an order dismissing appellant's PCRA petition without a hearing.

Appellant filed timely notices of appeal on December 12, 2019, in compliance with Commonwealth v. Walker , 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), and its progeny. On December 20, 2019, the PCRA court ordered appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant filed his Rule 1925(b) statement with the Chester County Clerk of Courts, while also serving the Commonwealth with a copy, on January 6, 2020. On January 14, 2020, the PCRA court filed its opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). ²

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

I. Were [a]ppellant's claims intentionally waived or abandoned?

II. Did the PCRA [c]ourt err in failing to find merit to [a]ppellant's claim of after-discovered evidence that the lead homicide detectives committed criminal misconduct rendering the evidence and the verdict unreliable, violating [a]ppellant's Fourth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights?

III. Did the PCRA [c]ourt err, violating [a]ppellant's rights pursuant to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, sec. 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution in finding that [a]ppellant's trial and appellate counsel were not ineffective for failing to make the correct argument in relation to the [m]otion to [s]uppress?

IV. Did the PCRA [c]ourt err, violating [a]ppellant's rights pursuant to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, sec. 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution in finding that trial counsel's agreement to admission of inconclusive DNA results without an on-record colloquy reflecting [a]ppellant's understanding of the consequences of counsel's actions and his consent thereto, did not violate [a]ppellant's right to confront the Commonwealth's witnesses against him?

Appellant's brief at 3.

In his first issue, appellant contends that his claims should not be considered waived or abandoned even though the PCRA court judge did not directly receive a copy of appellant's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. ( Id. at 8.)

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) provides, in relevant part:

(3) Contents of order. The judge's order directing the filing and service of a Statement shall specify:

....

(iii) that the Statement shall be served on the judge pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) and both the place the appellant can serve the Statement in person and the address to which the appellant can mail the Statement . In addition, the judge may provide an email, facsimile, or other alternative means for the appellant to serve the Statement on the judge; and

(iv) that any issue not properly included in the Statement timely filed and served pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be deemed waived.

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3) (emphasis added).

The PCRA court notes that appellant failed to serve his Rule 1925(b) statement upon the PCRA court. The record reflects the PCRA court entered the following Rule 1925(b) order:

AND NOW, this 20 ^th day of December, 2019, it is hereby ORDERED that pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b),

Teri B. Himebaugh, Esquire 1400 Spring Garden Street. #911 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19130

is hereby ORDERED to file of record and serve upon the undersigned, a concise statement ("Statement") of the errors complained of on appeal in the above captioned matter. The Statement must be filed of record. The Statement must be served upon the undersigned pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. No. 1925(b)(1). The Statement must be filed and served no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of the entry on the docket of this Order. Any issue not properly included in the Statement timely filed and served pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. No. 1925(b) shall be deemed waived. Attention is directed to Pa.R.A.P. No. 1925(b)(4) which sets forth requirements for the Statement.

PCRA court order, 12/20/19.

Here, the PCRA court's December 20, 2019 order failed to specify both the place and address where appellant could serve his Rule 1925(b) statement on the PCRA judge in person, as required by Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3)(iii). As the PCRA court's Rule 1925(b) order failed to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3)(iii), we decline to find waiver. See Commonwealth v. Jones , 193 A.3d 957, 961 (Pa.Super. 2018) (declining to find waiver where Rule 1925(b) order is deficient). Accordingly, we shall proceed to address appellant's remaining three issues.

In reviewing the denial of a PCRA petition:

[o]ur standard of review ... 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 , [ ], 29 A.3d 795 ([Pa.] 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 , [ ], 932 A.2d 74 ([Pa.] 2007).

Commonwealth v. Beatty , 207 A.3d 957, 960-961 (Pa.Super. 2019), appeal denied , 218 A.3d 850 (Pa. 2019).

Where a PCRA court has dismissed a petitioner's petition without an evidentiary hearing, as was the case here, we review the PCRA court's decision for an abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Roney , 79 A.3d 595, 604 (Pa. 2013), certiorari denied , 574 U.S. 829 (2014). Moreover,

the right to an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction petition is not absolute. It is within the PCRA court's discretion to decline to hold a hearing if the petitioner's claim is patently frivolous and has no support either in the record or other evidence. It is the responsibility of the reviewing court on appeal to examine each issue raised in the PCRA petition in light of the record certified before it in order to determine if the PCRA court erred in its determination that there were no genuine issues of material fact in controversy and in denying relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

Commonwealth v. Wah , 42 A.3d 335, 338 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citations omitted).

[T]o obtain 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 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. Johnson , 139 A.3d 1257, 1273 (Pa. 2016).

In his second issue, appellant contends that Detective Gerald Pawling's ³ criminal convictions "serve as the basis for the after-discovered evidence claim" and rendered the evidence and trial verdict unreliable, thereby violating appellant's Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. ( See appellant's brief at 11, 15.) Specifically, appellant argues:

The PCRA [c]ourt misunderstood the nature of the after[-]discovered evidence. Appellant is not asserting, as the PCRA [c]ourt apparently believes, that there were allegations by the DAO [Chester County District Attorney's Office] of misconduct by [Detective] Pawling which were directly related to the instant case. Appellant agrees that the DAO did not investigate or charge [Detective] Pawling in relation to any of his actions in the

...