Com. v. Stokes, T. ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • J. S47040/17
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :           PENNSYLVANIA
    v.                     :
    :
    TYON STOKES,                             :          No. 2655 EDA 2016
    :
    Appellant         :
    Appeal from the PCRA Order, July 26, 2016,
    in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
    Criminal Division at No. CP-51-CR-0006083-2009
    BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MOULTON, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
    MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:                 FILED AUGUST 09, 2017
    Tyon Stokes appeals pro se from the July 26, 2016 order entered in
    the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County which dismissed, without
    a hearing, his petition filed pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act
    (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
    The trial court set forth the following factual history:
    On    March   15,   2003,     [appellant]   and
    Phillip Sheridan got into an argument over drug
    territory in West Philadelphia. [Appellant] observed
    Sheridan selling drugs on Chester Avenue between
    55th and 56th Streets.       [Appellant] approached
    Sheridan, warning him that [appellant] would kill him
    if Sheridan made another sale on the block.
    Sheridan failed to comply with [appellant’s] request
    and made another sale.         [Appellant] again told
    Sheridan he would kill him. Sheridan then began to
    approach      [appellant],    taunting    [appellant].
    [Appellant] told Sheridan they don’t fight out there
    and showed Sheridan his firearm.              Sheridan
    J. S47040/17
    continued walking towards [appellant], who pulled
    out his gun and fired several shots at Sheridan,
    striking him in the head, arm, leg, and abdomen,
    killing him.
    Trial court opinion, 11/14/16 at 2-3.
    The trial court set forth the following procedural history:
    [Appellant] was convicted [in a jury trial] [1] of first
    degree murder and possessing [an] instrument of []
    crime.[2] [Appellant] was subsequently sentenced to
    life imprisonment without parole for the homicide
    bill, with no further penalty for possessing an
    instrument of a crime.
    A timely appeal was filed with the Superior
    Court, which affirmed the judgment of sentence on
    March 6, 2014. [Appellant’s] petition for allowance
    of appeal was denied by the Supreme Court on
    September 17, 2014. [Appellant] filed his [PCRA
    petition] on February 13, 2015. New counsel was
    appointed who filed a Finley[Footnote 1] letter and
    motion to withdraw as counsel on May 19, 2016.
    Despite [appellant] filing a pro se response to the
    Rule 907 dismissal notice, the petition was dismissed
    on July 26, 2016. [Appellant] filed a pro se notice
    of appeal on August 19, 2016, and a pro se
    Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal on
    September 23, 2016.
    [Footnote 1]       Commonwealth v.
    Finley, [] 
    550 A.2d 213
    ([Pa.Super.]
    1988) [(en banc]).
    
    Id. at 1-2.
    1
    The record reflects that appellant committed his crimes on March 15, 2003,
    but was not arrested until November 15, 2008. The trial court appointed
    defense counsel and granted various continuances. Prior to trial and as a
    result of a conflict of interest, new counsel was appointed. The case was
    then relisted for a jury trial.
    2
    18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a) and 907(a), respectively.
    -2-
    J. S47040/17
    Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
    I.    Did the PCRA court err in considering
    appellant’s 4th Amendment violation claim
    without merit, wherein appellant argued:
    counsel was ineffective for stipulating to the
    alleged authorization employed to seize
    [appellant’s] outgoing mail and for failing to
    motion for suppression of letters seized as a
    result[?]
    II.   Was PCRA counsel ineffective in failing to
    argue the merits of trial counsel’s ineffective
    assistance for a) stipulating to the truth of the
    means by which the appellant’s outgoing mail
    was seized and b) failing to preserve the
    violation of U.S. [Constitutional] Amendment
    IV that resulted?
    Appellant’s brief at vii (full capitalization omitted).
    We limit our review of a PCRA court’s decision to examining whether
    the record supports the PCRA court’s findings of fact and whether its
    conclusions of law are free from legal error.       Commonwealth v. Mason,
    
    130 A.3d 601
    , 617 (Pa. 2015) (citations omitted). We view the PCRA court’s
    findings and the evidence of record in a light most favorable to the prevailing
    party. 
    Id. To be
    entitled to PCRA relief, the defendant bears the burden of
    establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his conviction or
    sentence resulted from one or more of the circumstances enumerated in
    42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2), which include ineffectiveness of counsel that “so
    undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of
    -3-
    J. S47040/17
    guilt or innocence could have taken place.”      42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(i)
    and (ii); see also 
    Mason, 130 A.3d at 618
    (citations omitted).
    Here, appellant’s claims assert ineffective assistance of trial counsel
    and PCRA counsel.
    Counsel is presumed effective, and in order to
    overcome that presumption a PCRA petitioner must
    plead and prove that: (1) the legal claim underlying
    the ineffectiveness claim has arguable merit;
    (2) counsel’s action or        inaction   lacked any
    reasonable basis designed to effectuate petitioner’s
    interest; and (3) counsel’s action or inaction resulted
    in prejudice to petitioner. With regard to reasonable
    basis, the PCRA court does not question whether
    there were other more logical courses of action
    which counsel could have pursued; rather, [the
    court] must examine whether counsel’s decisions
    had any reasonable basis.          Where matters of
    strategy and tactics are concerned, [a] finding that a
    chosen strategy lacked a reasonable basis is not
    warranted unless it can be concluded that an
    alternative not chosen offered a potential for success
    substantially greater than the course actually
    pursued.    To demonstrate prejudice, a petitioner
    must show that there is a reasonable probability
    that, but for counsel’s actions or inactions, the result
    of the proceeding would have been different. Failure
    to establish any prong of the [] test will defeat an
    ineffectiveness claim.
    
    Mason, 130 A.3d at 618
    (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
    Appellant complains that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
    move to suppress prison correspondence from appellant to an inmate
    housed at another state correctional institution (“SCI”) and for entering into
    a stipulation at trial with respect to the outgoing-mail procedure followed at
    SCI Fayette and that SCI Fayette intercepted four outgoing incriminating
    -4-
    J. S47040/17
    letters written by appellant because seizure of the letters violated his
    constitutional rights.   Appellant further complains that PCRA counsel was
    ineffective for failing to raise trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in this regard.
    Appellant’s claim lacks arguable merit.
    In Commonwealth v. Moore, 
    928 A.2d 1092
    (Pa.Super. 2007), this
    court addressed the issue of whether a prisoner has a constitutional right to
    privacy in his non-privileged prison mail under the Fourth Amendment of the
    United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania
    Constitution, recognizing that:
    [a]lthough prison walls do not separate inmates from
    their constitutional rights, because of the unique
    nature and requirements of the prison setting,
    imprisonment carries with it the circumscription or
    loss of many significant rights . . . to accommodate a
    myriad of institutional needs . . . chief among which
    is internal security. Prisoners have used the mail to
    transport contraband into and out of prison, to
    discuss and participate in ongoing criminal activity,
    and to coordinate escape plans. An unrestricted
    privacy interest in non-privileged mail would assist
    criminal objectives by facilitating the transmission of
    information. On the other hand, prisoners must
    appreciate the inherent loss of privacy in a prison,
    where security and surveillance obviate any
    legitimate expectation of privacy.
    
    Id. at 1102
    (quotation marks and internal citations omitted).         This court
    then held that a “[prisoner] has no constitutional right to privacy in his
    non-privileged mail.”     
    Id. Therefore, appellant’s
    claim that he had a
    constitutional right to privacy in his non-privileged prison correspondence
    lacks arguable merit.
    -5-
    J. S47040/17
    Order affirmed.3
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 8/9/2017
    3
    Appellant filed a reply brief in this matter wherein he requested that this
    court “consider the [Commonwealth’s] brief barred from consideration, as it
    is untimely filed.” (Appellant’s reply to Commonwealth’s brief as appellee,
    6/13/17 at 2.) This court, however, entered an order on June 7, 2017 that
    granted the Commonwealth’s third application for an extension of time to file
    its brief and accepted the Commonwealth’s brief filed May 31, 2017 as
    timely filed. (Order of court, 6/7/17.) Therefore, we deny appellant’s
    request.
    -6-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Com. v. Stokes, T. No. 2655 EDA 2016

Filed Date: 8/9/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/9/2017