Commonwealth v. Meyerle

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WALTER FRANK MEYERLE Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WALTER FRANK MEYERLE Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WALTER FRANK MEYERLE Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WALTER FRANK MEYERLE Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WALTER FRANK MEYERLE Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WALTER FRANK MEYERLE Appellant

Nos. 1765 EDA 2021, 2548 EDA 2021, 2549 EDA 2021, 2550 EDA 2021, 2551 EDA 2021, 2552 EDA 2021

Nos. J-A21043-22, J-A21044-22

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

February 10, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 23, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s) CP-09-CR-0002035-2012, CP-09-CR-0004709-2011 CP-09-CR-0004719-2011, CP-09-CR-0004747-2011 CP-09-CR-0004863-2011

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MURRAY, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM

McCAFFERY, J.

In these consolidated appeals,^[1] Walter Frank Meyerle (Appellant) appeals, pro se, from the order entered in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his first, timely petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).^[2] Appellant seeks relief from the judgment of sentence of an aggregate term of 479½ to 959 years' imprisonment following his non-jury convictions of 188 criminal offenses involving his sexual abuse of multiple male and female minor victims over a 14-year period, his possession of child pornography, and his attempt to escape from prison. On appeal, Appellant raises claims asserting: (1) the ineffective assistance of prior counsel; (2) the denial of his due process when the trial court refused a continuance request; (3) prosecutorial misconduct; and (4) the denial of his right to assist in his defense due to side effects from his medication. For the reasons below, we affirm the order at Docket 1765 EDA 2021, and quash the appeals at Dockets 2548-2552 EDA 2021.

The relevant facts underlying Appellant's convictions are summarized in the PCRA court's 67-page opinion, and we need not recite them in detail herein. See PCRA Ct. Op., 10/25/21, at 4-17 (citation omitted). Suffice it to say that from 1997 through 2011, Appellant groomed and sexually abused 15 minor, male and female victims, ranging in age from 4 to 17 years old. The PCRA court detailed the relevant procedural history as follows:

On March 16, 2011, [Appellant] was charged with 42 criminal offenses for crimes committed against K.M., a female minor (Docket No. 4719-2011). On May 13, 2011, [Appellant] was charged with 213 criminal offenses for crimes committed against 13 additional victims, male and female minors (Docket No. 4747-2011). On June 27, 2011, [Appellant] was charged with 40 counts of Child Pornography and Criminal Use of a Communications Facility (Docket No. 4709-2011). On June 27, 2011, [Appellant] was charged with two criminal offenses in connection with [his] plan to escape from Bucks County Correctional Facility (Docket No. 4863 -2011). Private counsel, Kevin Mark Wray, Esquire, . . . was retained to represent [Appellant] in May, 2011. In July of 2011, [Appellant] waived his preliminary hearings in all four cases. On October 24, 2011, [Attorney Wray] filed an omnibus pretrial motion.

On February 21, 2012, [Appellant] was charged with eight criminal offenses for crimes committed against M.C., a female minor (Docket No. 2035-2012). The preliminary hearing was held on March 21, 2012. All charges were held for court.

On March 21, 2012, [Attorney] Wray filed four additional pretrial motions. A hearing on all of [Appellant's] motions began on April 16, 2012 and concluded on April 20 2012. During the course of that hearing, [Appellant] advised [the trial c]ourt that he wanted to fire [Attorney] Wray and asked for time to find new counsel. [Appellant's] request for a continuance of the trial to obtain new counsel was granted. Trial was scheduled for July 16, 2012. The pretrial hearings continued as scheduled.

[Appellant] thereafter applied and was approved for Public Defender representation. Due to a conflict of interest, on June 27, 2012, private conflict counsel, Michael S. Goodwin, Esquire and William Craig Penglase, Esquire, . . . were appointed to represent [Appellant]. Two attorneys were appointed due to the nature of the case and because trial was scheduled to begin at the end of July. On July 23, 2012, [Attorneys Goodwin and Penglase] filed eight supplemental pretrial motions.

On July 24, 2012, the trial was continued to August 13, 2012. A hearing on the supplemental pretrial motions was held on July 26, 2012. Prior to the hearing, the Commonwealth

requested a continuance of the trial date due to the unavailability of one of the lead detectives. That request was denied. On the day of the hearing, [Attorneys Goodwin and Penglase] requested a continuance of the trial date. That motion was also denied.

On August 13, 2012, [Appellant] waived his right to trial by jury and the cases proceeded by stipulated waiver trial. [Appellant] stipulated to the admission of the Commonwealth's evidence through police reports, the testimony of the investigators and other exhibits. On August 21, 2012, [Appellant] was found guilty of 188 criminal offenses [arising under all five trial court dockets, including rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault, sexual abuse of children-child pornography, and solicitation to commit escape.^[3]

* * *

In October, 2012, Stuart Wilder, Esquire, . . . was appointed to represent [Appellant].

On January 24, 2013, [Appellant] was sentenced to an aggregate term of incarceration of 494½ to 989 years. By order dated January 30, 2013, this Court vacated sentence on two counts in Docket No. 2035-2012, reducing the aggregate minimum sentence to 479½ to 959 years imprisonment. On February 4, 2013, [Appellant] filed post-sentence motions[, which were later withdrawn].

On April 22, 2013, [Appellant] filed a timely appeal. On December 24, 2014, the Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence[, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court later denied Appellant's petition for allowance of appeal. See Commonwealth v. Meyerle, 1252 EDA 2013 (Pa. Super. Dec. 24, 2012), appeal denied, 54 MAL 2013 (Pa. Jun. 11, 2015).]

On April 21, 2016, [Appellant] filed a pro se request for PCRA relief. On February 7, 2016, Paul G. Lang, Esquire, was appointed to represent [Appellant]. On May 15, 2017, [Attorney] Lang filed a Motion to Appoint Substitute Counsel based on [Appellant's] multiple allegations of ineffective assistance, [Appellant's] allegation that [Attorney] Lang's law partner represented one of the victim[s] and [Attorney] Lang's belief that there was an irretrievable and irrevocable breakdown in the attorney/client relationship. On October 18, 2017, a hearing on PCRA counsel's motion was held. At that time, [Appellant] agreed that [Attorney] Lang did not have a conflict of interest and advised [the PCRA c]ourt that he wanted [Attorney] Lang to continue to represent him. The Motion to Appoint Substitute Counsel was therefore withdrawn.

On January 8, 2018, [Attorney] Lang filed a request for an extension of 90 days within which to file an amended PCRA petition. The request was based on [Appellant's] case being reassigned to new conflict counsel as a result of the hiring of additional attorneys to serve as conflict counsel and the restructuring of conflict counsel duties. By order dated January 12, 2018, the appointment of [Attorney] Lang was vacated and Patrick J. McMenamin, Jr., Esquire, was appointed to represent [Appellant] in the PCRA proceedings.

On May 29, 2018, [Attorney] McMenamin filed a Post Conviction Relief Act No Merit Letter & Memorandum of Law Pursuant to Commonwealth v. Finley^[4] (hereinafter "No Merit Letter") and a Petition to Withdraw as Counsel. On June 4, 2018, [Appellant] filed a pro se motion for appointment of new PCRA counsel. On October 4, 2018, [Attorney] McMenamin was directed to file a supplemental no merit letter and memorandum of law or an amended PCRA petition within 90 days of the order to address [Appellant's] search warrant claims in light of the Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 164 A.3d 1133 (Pa. 2017). On January 4, 2019, [Attorney] McMenamin filed a Post Conviction Relief Act Supplemental No Merit Letter & Memorandum of Law Pursuant to Commonwealth v. Finley ("Supplemental No Merit Letter") and a motion to withdraw.

On July 12, 2019, a video hearing was held at which time [Appellant] was advised of [the PCRA c]ourt's intent to dismiss his PCRA Petition. He was advised that he would be given 20 days to respond, that he could proceed pro se or with privately retained counsel and that an extension of the time to file a response would be granted upon request. He was further advised that the exhibits/documents [he] sent to PCRA counsel would be returned to him for his use in preparing a response. Written Notice of intent to Dismiss was filed of record on July 15, 2019 and PCRA counsel was granted leave to withdraw.

On July 18, 2019, [Appellant] filed a petition requesting a 120-day extension within which to file his response[, which was granted by the PCRA court ─ thus, his response was due by November 18, 2019.] On August 28, 2019, [Attorney] McMenamin filed a Certification of Compliance verifying that all documents received from prior counsel and/or [Appellant] as well as copies of all of the notes of testimony had been sent to [Appellant]. [However, Appellant later advised the PCRA court] that several items were missing from the documents he had been provided[, and, thus, he requested another extension of time to file his response. The trial court scheduled a video hearing for December 12th, at

...