Commonwealth v. Royster

258 A.3d 500 (Table)

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee

v.Derek Lee ROYSTER, Appellant

No. 642 WDA 2020

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed: June 7, 2021

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:

Appellant, Derek Lee Royster, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial convictions for two counts each of aggravated assault and recklessly endangering another person ("REAP"), and one count each of voluntary manslaughter, attempted homicide, and carrying a firearm without a license.¹ We affirm.

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

On...November [27,] 2017, Miranda Engle was contacted by...Appellant and asked if she knew of anyone who wanted to purchase drugs, specifically cocaine. After the call, Engle and Megan Bowlen along with Marquell Bailey, Joel Grooms, and Devin Fitzgerald set up a plan to steal the cocaine from...Appellant. Engle arranged a meeting to purchase an eight ball of cocaine from...Appellant at an empty apartment located at 61 Pershing Court, Uniontown, Fayette County, Pennsylvania. That night the two women were waiting in the living room of the apartment when...Appellant arrived. Marquell Bailey and Devin Fitzgerald were hiding in another room of the apartment. The only light in the apartment came from the second floor. ...Appellant placed some cocaine on a coffee table for the women to sample. Bowlen then pretended she couldn't find her money[;] the women and [Appellant] went upstairs to locate her money. When no money was found upstairs, the three returned to the living room. While...Appellant stood by the door, Engle sprayed mace in his direction. Bailey entered the room and punched...Appellant once in the face. ...Appellant then pulled his gun and repeatedly fired it at Bowlen, Bailey, and Engle. Engle and Fitzgerald fled the apartment. Bailey, despite being shot twice in the chest, managed to exit the rear door of the apartment before collapsing. ...Appellant fled the apartment through the front door.

Bowlen went across the street and called an ambulance for Bailey. She also informed Engle that Bailey had been shot. Both women returned to the apartment and Engle began performing CPR until the ambulance arrived. After the ambulance arrived, the two women left the scene. Bailey died from the gunshot wounds. When contacted by the police later that evening, the women went to the police station and informed them that...Appellant had shot Bailey. ...Appellant was subsequently arrested in Wilkinsburg.

(Trial Court Opinion, filed August 17, 2020, at 2-3 unpaginated) (internal citations omitted).

The Commonwealth charged Appellant on May 16, 2018, with four counts of aggravated assault, three counts of REAP, and one count each of criminal homicide, attempt to commit criminal homicide, and possession with intent to deliver. The Commonwealth also filed an amended criminal information on August 29, 2018, adding one charge of carrying a firearm without a license. On September 25, 2018, Appellant filed an omnibus pretrial motion, which included a petition for habeas corpus relief alleging that "[t]he Commonwealth cannot sustain its burden to establish a prima facie case as to the charge[s] lodged against [Appellant]." (Omnibus Pretrial Motion at 1 unpaginated). Specifically, in his brief in support of granting habeas corpus relief, Appellant attacked the Commonwealth's charges of criminal homicide, aggravated assault, and possession with intent to deliver. Following several hearings, the court ultimately denied Appellant's motion on October 18, 2019. Significantly, at the November 21, 2018 hearing, the following exchange occurred:

[Defense Counsel]: [Appellant]'s position, Your Honor, is that the Commonwealth proposes that there was a robbery and that my client was attacked and was in the process of being beaten and maced.

The Court: So you're raising self-defense.

[Appellant]: No. Fuck, no. Stop playing with me. You trying to sell me out, bro. No. No, we're not raising no self defense.

[Defense Counsel]: I'm not raising self defense.

(N.T. Hearing, 11/21/18, at 19).

A jury trial commenced on March 2, 2020. On March 4, 2020, the jury found Appellant guilty of two counts each of aggravated assault and REAP, and one count each of voluntary manslaughter, attempted homicide, and carrying a firearm without a license. The court sentenced Appellant the following day to an aggregate term of 10 to 20 years' imprisonment, and granted Appellant three days of credit for time served, explaining:

[Appellant's] credit time is from November 30, 2017, to December 3, 2017, the reason being is that although [Appellant] has been incarcerated since November 30, 2017, he was revoked and resentenced by me at No. [1932] and 1946 both of 2016, six to twelve months and six to twelve months consecutively. He has used up and maxed out on each of those. I am not sure of the date, guessing it was November 30, 2017—he maxed out on the revocation on December 4, 2019, which obviously...consumed or used up a lot of that time. The other thing that is affecting the credit time, [J]udge Leskinen placed a detainer on him at case No. 267 of 2014 and Judge Leskinen entered an Order on May 21 of 2018, indicating that he would not resolve the detainer until he was sentenced on the homicide charge. The date of Judge Leskinen's Order, May 21 of 2018, so he still needs [defense counsel] to resolve that detainer and you may want to bring that to his attention to get it scheduled. All of that said between the two sentences and the detainer, there is only three days credit and, yes, [the probation officer] did, as she said to me triple check it, so she has very intentionally gone over the credit time.

(N.T. Sentencing, 3/5/20, at 6).

Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion on Monday, March 16, 2020, which the court denied on May 22, 2020. On Monday, June 22, 2020, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, and the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant complied on July 13, 2020.

Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:

Whether the habeas corpus [petition] should have [been] granted and the case dismissed when [Appellant] used lawful and justifiable force in self-defense and cannot be criminally liable for the unintentional death of an individual and attempts to cause bodily injury to others under Pennsylvania law?

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdicts of the jury?

Whether the trial court erred in permitting the police officer's testimony about a statement made by [Appellant] to his attorney during a pretrial proceeding in regard to a possible defense at trial?

Whether the trial court erred in the calculation and determination of [Appellant's] credit for time served when it imposed sentence on March 5, 2020?

(Appellant's Brief at 4).

In his first issue, Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying his habeas corpus petition where the Commonwealth failed to present a prima facie case of the charges against him. Specifically, Appellant attacks the court's determination that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to support its allegations of criminal homicide and aggravated assault. Rather, Appellant maintains he cannot be found guilty of these offenses where he acted in self-defense after Mr. Bailey and his co-conspirators attacked Appellant in a vacant apartment and Appellant assumed they intended to kill or injure him. Appellant submits there was ample evidence presented at the pre-trial hearings to show that he acted instinctively out of fear following the attack and justifiably employed self-defense, including, inter alia : (1) Ms. Bowlen's testimony that Appellant was maced and punched in the face while Mr. Bailey and his co-conspirators attempted to rob Appellant, and Appellant pulled out his gun and fired several shots in response; and (2) Detective Doug Yohouse's testimony that, upon picking Appellant up, Appellant spontaneously claimed "it was self-defense." (Id. at 12). Appellant further maintains there was no evidence showing he was the initial aggressor or that he acted intentionally/knowingly. Appellant concludes "[t]he habeas corpus should have been granted and the charges...dismissed." (Id. at 16). We disagree.

Our standard of review of a trial court's grant or denial of a pre-trial habeas corpus motion is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v. Price , 189 A.3d 423, 427 (Pa.Super. 2018), appeal denied , 650 Pa. 653, 201 A.3d 157 (2019) (citing Commonwealth v. Dantzler , 135 A.3d 1109, 1112 (Pa.Super. 2016) (en banc )). As this Court explained in Dantzler :

A pre-trial habeas corpus motion is the proper means for testing whether the Commonwealth has sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. To demonstrate that a prima facie case exists, the Commonwealth must produce evidence of every material element of the charged offense(s) as well as the defendant's complicity therein. To meet its burden, the Commonwealth may utilize the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing and also may submit additional proof.

Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Furthermore,

In reviewing a trial court's order granting [or denying] a defendant's petition for writ of habeas corpus , we "must generally consider whether the record supports the trial court's findings, and whether the inferences and legal conclusions drawn from those findings are free from error." ... Notably, the Commonwealth does not have to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth so that inferences that would support a guilty verdict are given effect.

Price, supra (citing Commonwealth v. Santos , 583 Pa. 96, 876 A.2d 360, 363 (2005) ).

The Crimes Code defines the criminal homicide and aggravated assault, in relevant part, as follows:

§

...