Com. v. Hendricks, M. ( 2017 )

J-S89027-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MATTHEW HENDRICKS,
Appellant No. 234 EDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order December 23, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0003173-2009
BEFORE: SHOGAN, MOULTON, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.:FILED JULY 11, 2017
I respectfully note my disagreement with an aspect of the Majority
Memorandum in this case. Following my review of the record, I conclude
that the first issue is waived. I agree with the Majority’s disposition of
Appellant’s second issue.
The Majority mistakenly plunges into consideration of the merits of
Appellant’s issues without any evaluation concerning whether Appellant’s
PCRA petition established Appellant’s eligibility for relief pursuant to 42
Pa.C.S. § 9543, or whether his claims were previously litigated or waived, 42
Pa.C.S. § 9544. Our Supreme Court reiterated guiding legal principles in
such a case, as follows:
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S89027-16
To be entitled to relief under the PCRA, a petitioner must
establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his
conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the errors
enumerated in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2), and that his claims have
not been previously litigated or waived. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544. An
issue is previously litigated if “the highest appellate court in
which [the appellant] could have had review as a matter of right
has ruled on the merits of the issue.” Id. § 9544(a)(2). An
issue is waived if the appellant “could have raised it but failed to
do so before trial, at trial, . . . on appeal or in a prior state
postconviction proceeding.” Id. § 9544(b).
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 139 A.3d 1257, 1272 (Pa. 2016).
Appellant’s PCRA allegation that the Commonwealth’s failure to inform
the defense, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),1 that
Janelle Gordon recently revealed Appellant was not involved in the 2007
killing of David Rivera is reminiscent of Appellant’s claim raised in his post-
sentence motions and addressed on direct appeal that there existed
exculpatory after-discovered evidence from Clyde Lont that Appellant was
not involved in the murder of David Rivera. Commonwealth v. Hendricks,
64 A.3d 271 (Pa. Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum at 2 n.3). I thus
conclude this claim is waived.
Under the PCRA, an issue is waived “if the petitioner could have raised
it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, during unitary review, on appeal or
____________________________________________
1
Under Brady and subsequent decisional law, “a prosecutor has an
obligation to disclose all exculpatory information material to the guilt or
punishment of an accused, including evidence of an impeachment nature.
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 611 Pa. 280, 25 A.3d 277, 310
(2011).” Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 607 (Pa. 2013).
-2-
J-S89027-16
in a prior state postconviction proceeding.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b). Here, I
observe that Brady is not violated when the appellant knew or, with
reasonable diligence, could have uncovered the evidence in question, or
when the evidence was available to the defense from other sources. Roney,
79 A.3d at 608 (emphasis added).
In his post-sentence motions, Appellant sought a new trial based upon
after-discovered evidence that Clyde Lont, Appellant’s co-defendant, stated
that Appellant was not involved in the shooting of David Rivera. This claim
was addressed and rejected by the trial court and affirmed by this Court in
Appellant’s direct appeal. Hendricks, 64 A.3d 271 (unpublished
memorandum). Thus, counsel was placed on notice that Appellant was not
involved in the crime. The witness who most recently allegedly told counsel
that Appellant was not involved in Rivera’s shooting, Janelle Gordon, was “an
important Commonwealth witness at trial,” as described by Appellant himself
in his PCRA petition. PCRA Petition, 6/19/14, at ¶12. Moreover, at the
hearing on post-sentence motions on August 16, 2011, Mr. Lont testified
that he had been in a vehicle with Ms. Gordon earlier the day of the
shooting, that they had driven by the victim’s house, and that Mr. Lont and
Ms. Gordon lived together one and one-half blocks from the victim. N.T.,
8/16/11, at 12. At the PCRA hearing, Ms. Gordon testified that in 2008, she
provided extensive testimony to the defense concerning Mr. Lont and
Appellant. N.T., 10/29/14, at 30–31.
-3-
J-S89027-16
Appellant does not offer any explanation why defense counsel could
not have uncovered the alleged Brady violation with reasonable diligence.
See Roney, 79 A.3d at 609 (issue waived where the appellant did not
explain why prior counsel could not have uncovered the alleged Brady
violations with reasonable diligence). As Appellant noted, Ms. Gordon was a
significant witness at trial. She offered extensive evidence while in the office
of trial counsel. She was the girlfriend of Mr. Lont. The issue of after-
discovered evidence was presented in post-sentence motions and addressed
on direct appeal. I believe that with reasonable diligence, Appellant could
have uncovered the evidence in question or it was available to the defense
from sources other than the Commonwealth. Thus, I conclude the issue is
waived.
As I concur with the disposition of Appellant’s second issue, I
respectfully concur and dissent.
-4-