Commonwealth v. Walker

270 A.3d 1144 (Table)

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.Ronald WALKER, Appellant

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

v.Ronald Walker, Appellant

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

v.Ronald Walker, Appellant

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

v.Ronald Walker, Appellant

No. 323 EDA 2021

No. 324 EDA 2021

No. 325 EDA 2021

No. 326 EDA 2021

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed December 15, 2021

Reargument Denied February 17, 2022

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:

In these consolidated pro se appeals, Ronald Walker challenges the PCRA court's denial of his first petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541 - 9546. We affirm.

The PCRA court summarized at the length the pertinent facts and trial testimony underlying Walker's criminal convictions as follows:

The evidence at trial established that [Complainant] and [Walker] had been in a relationship for approximately six months in 2014 after having met at [Complainant's] Daycare Center where [Walker's] children attended. After living together for a while, Complainant ended the relationship. On August 10, 2014, a week after [Walker] moved out, he returned to Complainant's home, brandishing a gun and awakened her with "Wake up bitch." [Walker], who was initially wearing a mask and gloves, while holding the gun, continuously punched Complainant about the head and stomach, interrogated her about messages on her phone, and forced her to perform oral sex on him. The violent physical and sexual assault went on for hours, culminating with [Walker] transporting [Complainant] to his home where [she] begged to receive medical attention. Finally, [Walker] drove her to the hospital, but gave an implied threat that her family would be harmed if she did not fabricate a story that she was jumped by a group of girls. At the hospital, [Walker] posed as [Complainant's] fiancé, remained nearby as she was treated. [Complainant's] injuries were so severe that she had to be transported by ambulance to a facility that specialized in concussions where she remained heavily medicated for several days. [Walker] remained close throughout [Complainant's] hospitalization, drove her home when she was discharged and remained and cared for her children while she recuperated. Fearing for her life and that of her family, [Complainant] did not disclose the incident to anyone.

As [Complainant] recovered and returned to work, [Walker's] behavior, once again, became increasingly abusive and threatening. Finally, [Complainant] decided to tell her family about the August 10th incident. Ultimately, [Walker's] barrage of harassment and threats compelled her to contact the police on August 29, 2014. Following the report to the police, Complainant attempted to serve [Walker] with a Protection From Abuse Order, but he refused to meet her. A few days later, Complainant learned that her Daycare Center had been burglarized and items stolen and another center that she was in the process of renovating had been set on fire. She also learned that an attempt had been made to attack her brother and that her Daycare van had been stolen. Afraid for her life, Complainant took her mother and children to a hotel in New Jersey. [Walker] continued to try to contact Complainant, who, ultimately, out of fear, agreed to meet with him. During the meeting, [Walker] admitted to the damage to her businesses and the attack on her family member. Despite her fears, Complainant agreed to move back into [Walker's] home in the hope that her family would be spared further attacks. While there, Complainant was constantly reminded by [Walker] that she was not to tell anyone about his beating her up, destroying her businesses or attacking her brother. She remained with [Walker] for several weeks until he was arrested for the August 10th attack. After [Walker] was arrested, Complainant made arrangements to move out of the city to an undisclosed location.

The trial evidence included a surveillance camera video showing [Walker] in the vicinity of [Complainant's] Daycare Center at the time of the fire. 404(b) evidence of [Walker's] prior abuse against women he had relationships with was also admitted. Detectives and police officers testified to their investigations into the incidents which occurred on September 3, 2014 at the Prestige Daycare Center, 4907 N. 5th Street in Philadelphia (vandalism and theft), at 5060 Copley Road in Philadelphia (shattered window and spent cartridge casings) and at 1509-1511 Wadsworth Avenue in Philadelphia (fires set in six different locations and heavy smell of gasoline).

Complainant's assistant, Tanita Carodine, testified that on September 3, 2014, she noticed that the Dodge van she used for her job at the Daycare Center was missing from her back driveway. Inside the van, among other things, was a bag which contained her daughter's uniforms. Sometime thereafter, [Walker] contacted Ms. Carodine and arranged to meet her near the Daycare Center. At that time, he gave her the bag with her daughter's uniforms. The van was recovered later parked on the street.

[Walker] testified and denied all of the accusations against him. He testified that he had no idea why Complainant, her brother and the Daycare assistant would testify and implicate him the way they did. He also presented his mother, daughter and son who all stated, after viewing the surveillance video, that they could not recognize the man in the video who was seen in the back of the Daycare the night of the fire.

PCRA Court Opinion, 3/21/21, at 3-5 (citations and footnote omitted).

The PCRA Court also summarized the procedural history as follows:

On September 25, 2014, [Walker] was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, burglary, sexual assault, possession of an instrument of crime, witness intimidation and related offenses. Thereafter, on October 28, 2014, [Walker] was charged with arson, two more counts of burglary, three counts of retaliation against a witness or victim, three more counts of witness intimidation, criminal mischief’ and related charges.

Due to the allegations of witness intimidation, the Commonwealth requested that a grand jury be empaneled pursuant to Pa. R Crim P. 556 et seq. A grand jury was convened and voted to indict [Walker] on the above charges. The supervising judge of the grand jury, the Honorable Charles Ehrlich, after receiving the grand jury's indictments authorized the Commonwealth to prepare bills of information pursuant to Pa. R. Crim. P. 560.

A jury trial was held before this court. On April 15, 2015, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all aforementioned charges, a verdict of not guilty on one charge of discharging a firearm into an occupied structure and all remaining charges were nolle prossed. Sentencing was deferred for presentence and mental health reports to be filed. On September 15, 2016, the Commonwealth chose not to pursue a Sexually Violent Predator designation at sentencing. [Walker] was sentenced to an aggregate term of thirty-six to ninety-seven years of incarceration.

On February 13, 2017, a notice of appeal to the Superior Court was filed. On October 30, 2017, the Superior Court ordered a Grazier Hearing. On November 13, 2017, a Grazier hearing was held and [Walker] was permitted to proceed pro se. On August 23, 2018, judgment of sentence was affirmed. [Walker] filed a petition for allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania which was denied on September 4, 2019. [Walker] thereafter filed motions to both the Supreme Court and Superior Court requesting reconsideration and a new trial which were both denied.

The instant [PCRA] petition was filed on December 9, 2019. [Walker] became dissatisfied with his PCRA counsel and requested to proceed pro se . Due to COVID-19 court protocols and technical difficulties with the video equipment used to communicate with state inmates, it took until November 23, 2020 for a Grazier hearing to be held. At this time, [Walker] was permitted to proceed pro se and informed that a 907 Notice of Intent to Dismiss would be filed. The 907 Notice was filed that day. Despite the court informing [Walker] that a formal dismissal of the PCRA [petition] would follow the 907 Notice and that he should wait until the formal dismissal was filed to file an appeal, [Walker] filed a notice of appeal to the Superior Court on December 9, 2020. This untimely appeal was docketed at 116 EDA 2021, 117 EDA 2021, 118 EDA 2021, and 119 EDA 2021 and this court was advised by the Superior Court Prothonotary's Office to dismiss the PCRA [petition] as planned and that no opinion was needed for the untimely appeal. On January 8, 2021, the Order Dismissing the PCRA Petition was entered. [Walker] filed this timely appeal, pro se, on January 25, 2021.

PCRA Court Opinion, 3/21/21, at 1-2 (excess capitalization omitted).

We set forth Walker's multiple issues raised in this appeal verbatim:

1. Is it not the duty for the trial court to redress a procedural error, sua sponte, when the invocation of jurisdiction is absent?

2. Is it not an Equal Protection Right, and a Due Process Right violation, pursuant to our State and Federal Constitution, for trial court to continue to proceed with judicial proceedings knowing that [our] procedural Rules, Statutes and well settled PA. laws were abrogated?

3. Is it not unreasonable, bias, prejudice, abuse of discretion and an egregious example of Judicial Misconduct against appellant for the trial court/PCRA court not to address 'Lack of Jurisdiction/Void Judgment' claims in accordance with [our] 'stare decisis' doctrine?

4. Is it not uncinstitutional to keep appellant illegally in State confinement, 1,600 days, on a 'void judgment'?

5. Is it not the only remedy a discharge with prejudice pursuant to Rule 600(C)(1), for Commonwealth's lack of due diligence? And a double jeopardy violation to remand back to lower court for a new trial in which 42 PA. C.S.A. 5552(b), would prohibit it, due to a statute of limitation violation?

6. Did not this

...