Commonwealth v. Rannels

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 12, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002281-2012

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J. ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

NICHOLS, J.

Appellant Chad Rannels appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his jury conviction for first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and related offenses.^[1] Appellant claims that the trial court erred in allowing a detective to interpret the records of a prison phone call at trial and in denying his motion to suppress evidence prior to his second trial. He also claims that the sentence of life without parole for conspiracy to commit murder is an illegal sentence. For the reasons that follow, we are constrained to vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum.

The trial court summarized the procedural history as follows:

Appellant was arrested on September 23, 2011 and charged with murder, conspiracy to commit murder, firearms charges and possession of an instrument of crime. On June 4, 2013 following jury selection, Judge Lillian Ransom granted defense counsel's motion to suppress Appellant's statements to homicide detectives.^[2] The Commonwealth filed an Interlocutory Appeal to the Superior Court and the jury was excused. On June 4, 2014, the Super[ior] Court affirmed the order granting the defense motion to suppress [Commonwealth v. Rannels, 1568 EDA 2013, 2014 WL 10917038 (Pa. Super. filed June 4, 2014) (unpublished mem.), appeal denied, 106 A.3d 725 (Pa. 2015).] On August 28, 2014 petition for allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was filed and on January 14, 2015 it was denied.

. . . The trial was scheduled for May 23, 2016. The case was assigned to Judge Diana Anhalt and on May 23, 2016 [the] defense requested a continuance to hire an expert witness[, and Appellant raised additional suppression claims.] On October 11, 2016 the jury returned with a Guilty verdict on one gun charge and was hung on all other charges. A mistrial was declared. On November 21, 2016 [Appellant's] counsel withdrew from the case and new counsel was appointed.

Retrial was scheduled for January 30, 2017. On January 30, 2017 the [second] trial was continued and rescheduled for September 11, 2017. New counsel [for Appellant] entered the case on June 5, 2017 [and filed additional motions to suppress]. Multiple defense requests for continuance resulted in the trial being scheduled for April 1, 2019. The case was reassigned to [Judge Gwendolyn Bright, who denied Appellant's motions to suppress].

On April 12, 2019 the jury returned with a verdict of Guilty on all remaining charges . . . .

Trial Ct. Op., 10/28/20, at 1-2.

The trial court then summarized the evidence at Appellant's second trial as follows:

In the early morning hours of July 30, 2011 Kristin Shaquille Freeman [(decedent)] was shot and killed by Appellant around the 100 block of Garfield Street in Philadelphia. Shortly after midnight, the [decedent] was with his mother, Angela Hardy, at a Chinese store around the intersection of Germantown Avenue and Garfield Street. The [decedent] left the store to go to his car while his mother walked down the street to her mother's house. Hardy was speaking to neighbors outside her mother's house and heard gunshots. Someone told her that her son's car was shot up on Garfield Street and she ran towards the shooting. Hardy identified her son's car at the scene of the shooting. [The decedent] was pronounced dead at 1:08 a.m. on July 31, 2011 at Albert Einstein Medical Center, cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds.

A car located near the [decedent]'s vehicle was searched and a rental agreement as well as tickets to Six Flags Great Adventure were recovered. John Fisher's name was listed as the operator of the car on the rental agreement. Fisher testified that his boss rented the car and bought the ticket to Six Flags as a gift to her employees for good performance. A few days later, on July 29, 2011, Fisher rented the car to Appellant to earn money to buy drugs. Fisher knew Appellant as a drug dealer he had purchased drugs from previously. Police located Appellant through cell phone records following an interview with Fisher. Appellant's fingerprints were identified inside the car and on a gun found at the crime scene. The fingerprints of various other individuals were also found in the car.

Id. at 3 (record citations and footnote omitted).

On April 12, 2019, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for first-degree murder and

conspiracy to commit murder. The trial court imposed no further penalties for the remaining offenses.

Appellant timely filed a counseled post-sentence motion on April 22, 2019. On May 2, 2019, the trial court thereafter granted Appellant leave to proceed pro se following a Grazier^[3] hearing and permitted Appellant to file a supplemental post-sentence motion pro se. On May 21, 2019, the trial court ordered a continuance to accommodate Appellant's need "for video and notes of testimony" and to "provide an affidavit verifying his investigator[, ]" Order, 5/21/19. In the same order, the trial court stated that Appellant could file a supplemental post-sentence motion by July 22, 2019. Appellant filed his pro se supplemental post-sentence motion on July 17, 2019. On October 3, 2019, the trial court denied Appellant's post-sentence motion and appointed appellate counsel to represent Appellant for appeal.

Appellant, through counsel, filed a notice of appeal on Monday, November 4, 2019.^[4] This Court then granted appointed appellate counsel's motion to withdraw and remanded the matter to the trial court for the appointment of substitute counsel. The trial court thereafter appointed present counsel to represent Appellant and directed counsel to file and serve a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Counsel timely complied and challenged the

trial court's rulings to (1) deny Appellant's suppression motions before his second trial, (2) permit a detective to interpret Appellant's prison phone calls, and (3) impose a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for conspiracy. The trial court filed an opinion and concluded that Appellant's first two issues lacked merit but requested that this Court amend an illegal sentence for conspiracy. Trial Ct. Op. at 4-6.

Appellant presents three issues, which we have reordered as follows:

1. Did the trial court err and cause irreparable harm to Appellant by intruding upon the province of the jury and allowing Detective John Verrecchio to engage in extensive interpretation of the evidence that was prejudicial to Appellant?

2. Did the trial court err in not suppressing DNA, fingerprint, phone records, and other physical evidence which was only obtained based upon an illegally-obtained oral statement by Appellant that was suppressed and there was no basis for stating that the physical evidence would have been inevitably discovered absent the unconstitutional obtaining of Appellant's statement by police?

3. Did the trial court err in imposing an illegal sentence of mandatory life for conspiracy to commit murder in the first-degree?

Appellant's Brief at 4 (formatting altered).

Detective John Verrecchio's Testimony

In his first issue, Appellant claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it overruled his objection and permitted Detective Verrecchio to interpret prison phone calls he made regarding John Fisher, who testified at trial against him. Appellant argues that during direct and redirect examination by the Commonwealth, the detective (1) attempted to link

Appellant to the murder of Kevin Drinks while trying to coordinate the murder of Fisher, the latter who testified against Appellant, (2) concluded that Appellant was trying to set up Fisher's murder, and (3) concluded that Appellant was asking whether Fisher was killed at his behest.^[5] Id. at 16-17. Appellant claims that the detective's testimony invaded the province of the jury and caused "irreparable harm" because it implicated him in the killing of another individual. Id. at 17.

The Commonwealth responds that Detective Verrecchio's testimony did not invade the province of the jury. The Commonwealth notes that the

detective's testimony was limited to answering the Commonwealth's questions regarding the background and facts of the case. Commonwealth's Brief at 15-16. The Commonwealth further contends that the detective's answers to questions on redirect examination responded to cross-examination that challenged whether the detective misheard or misunderstood the recordings. Id. The Commonwealth notes that the trial court instructed the jury that they were the sole judges of the facts, that the jury heard the audio of the call, and that the trial court instructed the jury that the audio itself was the actual evidence. Id. at 16. According to the Commonwealth, this instruction cured any error or prejudice resulting from the detective's testimony. Id.

The trial court concluded that Appellant's claim lacked merit because the evidence of Appellant's prison calls and Detective Verrecchio's testimony was admissible as evidence of Appellant's consciousness of guilt. Trial Ct. Op. at 5. The trial court further notes the detective's passing references to the meaning of terms such as "street smoke," "ME," and "PARS report" and concludes that it properly instructed the jury on how to consider the detective's testimony. Id.

"Questions regarding the...