Commonwealth v. Fields

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CHRISTOPHER FIELDS Appellant

No. 2155 EDA 2023

No. J-S31020-24

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

December 2, 2024

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 15, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009361-2014

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

BEFORE: BOWES, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM

McLAUGHLIN, J.

Christopher Fields appeals from the order dismissing his Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA") petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.A §§ 9541-9546. Fields raises several claims of ineffectiveness of counsel. We affirm.

A panel of this Court previously set forth the facts as follows:

[Around] 11:15 [p.m.] on June 7, 2014, [Victim] and his [girlfriend], Shirley Ebron, were driving northbound on the Roosevelt Boulevard in Philadelphia, when he came to a stop at the traffic light at Fifth Street. [Fields] along with fifteen to twenty other motorcyclists were heading in the same direction. A group of the bikers pulled in front of [Victim's] car[,] cutting him off as the others pulled up behind and beside him, irate that [Victim] had not previously allowed all of the bikers to pull in front of his car. Having his car surrounded by the motorcyclists, [Victim] opened the door and took a step out of his vehicle at which time, [Fields] drew his pistol and shot [Victim] five times, killing him.

Police Captain Nick Brown was off-duty and stopped perpendicular to the [B]oulevard when he first observed the bikers. After hearing the gunshots, [Captain] Brown saw Ms. Ebron get out of the passenger side of the car and come to the [aid] of [Victim]. The captain got out of his car and approached the crime scene. [Captain] Brown saw [Fields], straddling his white motorcycle pointing a gun at Ms. Ebron, who was on the ground. At the same time, Officers Troy Ragsdale and Dawn Jones who were in an unmarked police car happened to be approaching the scene. The uniformed officers got out of their vehicle with guns drawn, prompting the bikers to flee. Officer Ragsdale approached the scene, yelling at [Fields] to stop, and observed [Fields] stuff an object into his vest. [Fields'] motorcycle wouldn't start, so he ditched the bike, running northbound on 5th Street to the other side of the [B]oulevard. The police lost sight of [Fields] in the brush, and [Fields] made it across the [B]oulevard.

Tiffany Scott lived on the [B]oulevard. After hearing the shots, while standing on her upstairs balcony, she saw a man standing at her door. Ms. Scott yelled at him and he took off on foot, eventually running back across the [B]oulevard, where he was struck by a car. Not seriously injured, [Fields] again took off into the brush. The police scoured the area, using a helicopter to light up the area and found [Fields]. Officer Ragsdale identified [Fields,] and he was arrested. Additionally, the police found [Fields'] goggles on Ms. Scott's walkway, and across from her steps, a .40 caliber Smith & Wesson handgun with a laser sight. Next to the pistol was a trashcan containing [Fields'] helmet and black motorcycle vest. The vest is a "Wheels of Soul" vest with patches of "One Percent" and "Enforcer." Gunshot residue was detected on [Fields'] clothing and ballistics [tests] showed that the .40 caliber [handgun], found where [Fields] had been hiding, matched the fired cartridge casings on the street as well as in [Victim's] car door and front seat.

Commonwealth v. Fields, No. 2981 EDA 2017, 2018 WL 6582776, at *1 (Pa.Super. filed Dec. 14, 2018) (citation omitted).

A jury convicted Fields of third-degree murder, firearms not to be carried without a license, carrying a firearm on public streets in Philadelphia, and possessing instruments of crime.^[1] The court sentenced Fields to an aggregate term of 28½ to 57 years' imprisonment. Fields filed post-sentence motions, which were denied. Fields appealed and we affirmed his judgment of sentence. See id. In May 2019, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied Fields' petition for allowance of appeal.

In January 2020, Fields filed a pro se PCRA petition. Counsel was appointed and subsequently filed a no-merit letter. The court issued a notice of intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. New counsel entered her appearance on behalf of Fields and filed a response to the court's Rule 907 notice. In May 2022, Fields filed a counseled amended PCRA petition. The court again issued a Rule 907 notice, and Fields filed a response to the notice. On August 15, 2023, the court dismissed Fields' PCRA petition. This appeal followed.

Fields raises the following issues:

1. Whether the PCRA court erred, when it dismissed Appellant Christopher Fields' petition for post conviction relief, as trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress data recovered by Mr. Fields' cell phone?

2. Whether the PCRA court erred, when it dismissed Appellant Christopher Fields' petition for post conviction relief, as trial counsel was ineffective in his cross-examination of Philadelphia Police Department Criminalistics Laboratory forensic scientist Lynn Haimowitz?

3. Whether the PCRA court erred, when it dismissed Appellant Christopher Fields' petition for post conviction relief, as trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a substantial question as to Appellant Christopher Fields' sentence in his post-sentence motion, resulting in waiver of this claim on direct appeal?

4. Whether the PCRA court erred, when it dismissed Appellant Christopher Fields' petition for post conviction relief, as appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue on direct appeal, that the trial court erred in denying Appellant Christopher Fields' peremptory challenge to juror number 3 during voir dire?

Fields' Br. at 4-5.

On appeal from the denial or grant of relief under the PCRA, our review is limited to determining "whether the PCRA court's ruling is supported by the record and free of legal error." Commonwealth v. Presley, 193 A.3d 436, 442 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citation omitted).

Fields raises claims of counsel's ineffectiveness. "[C]ounsel is presumed to be effective and the burden of demonstrating ineffectiveness rests on [the] appellant." Commonwealth v. Rivera, 10 A.3d 1276, 1279 (Pa.Super. 2010). To obtain relief based on a claim of ineffectiveness, a petitioner must establish: "(1) his underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) counsel had no reasonable basis for his action or inaction; and (3) the petitioner suffered actual prejudice as a result." Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294, 311 (Pa. 2014). Prejudice in this context means that, "absent counsel's conduct, there is a reasonable probability the outcome of the proceedings would have been different." Commonwealth v. Velazquez, 216 A.3d 1146, 1149 (Pa.Super. 2019) (citation omitted). A failure to meet any of these prongs bars a petitioner from obtaining relief. Commonwealth v. Sneed, 45 A.3d 1096, 1106 (Pa. 2012).

Fields first argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress the data recovered from Fields' cell phone. Fields' Br. at 14. He maintains that shortly after he was arrested, the police confiscated his cell phone. Id. at 23. Ten days later, the police applied for and were granted a search warrant for the phone. Id. at 24. Incriminating photographs, including photographs of a gray hooded sweatshirt, a Wheels of Soul motorcycle vest, and a motorcycle and a helmet identical to those recovered at the crime scene, were recovered from the phone and presented at trial. Id. at 29. Fields argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the data recovered from his phone because the search warrant was unconstitutionally overbroad and lacked probable cause. Id. at 25-26. In Fields' view, "[t]he search warrant permitted an essentially unlimited search of the device." Id. at 27. He points out that "[t]here is no indication that a cell phone was utilized in the commission of the crime" or that "a full-blown search of Fields' cell phone would yield specific evidence of the shooting such as the identity of co-conspirators." Id. at 28.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. Except where an exception applies, "a search is constitutionally invalid unless it is conducted pursuant to a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate and supported by probable cause." Commonwealth v. Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053, 1063-64 (Pa. 2013). "[T]he totality of the circumstances set forth in the affidavit [of probable cause] must be considered when examining whether probable cause supports the issuance of the search warrant." Commonwealth v. Harlan, 208 A.3d 497, 505 (Pa.Super. 2019) (quotation marks omitted). "[P]robable cause is based on a finding of the probability, not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity, and deference is to be accorded a magistrate's finding of probable cause." Commonwealth v. Arthur, 62 A.3d 424, 432 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citation and brackets omitted; italics added). We limit our review to the four corners of the affidavit. Id.

"[A] warrant must name or describe with particularity the property to be seized and the person or place to be searched." Commonwealth v. Orie, 88 A.3d 983, 1002 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted). A warrant is not sufficiently particular if it "authorizes a search in terms so ambiguous as to allow the executing officers to pick and choose among an individual's possessions to find which items to seize." Commonwealth v. Green, 204 A.3d 469, 480 (Pa.Super. 2019) (citation omitted). A warrant must also...