Com. v. Chambarlain, A. ( 2017 )

J-S89006-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ANTOINE D. CHAMBARLAIN,
Appellant No. 3525 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order November 17, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0203881-2006
BEFORE: SHOGAN, MOULTON, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED JANUARY 04, 2017
Antoine D. Chambarlain (“Appellant”) appeals from the order denying
his petition for collateral relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act
(“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
This case arises out of a fatal shooting that occurred on July 24, 2005,
in the area of 60th Street and Lansdowne Avenue in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. The PCRA court summarized the facts of the underlying case
as follows:
[Appellant] served as the driver during a planned drive-by
shooting. [Appellant’s] brother, Jerrell Washington, who was
sitting in the rear, shot and killed an innocent bystander,
Walworth Gardiner. [Appellant’s] friend, Travis Truitt, who
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S89006-16
testified for the Commonwealth, sat in the front passenger seat.
([N.T.] 4/19/2010, pp. 17-20, 22-30, 34, 77).
At the scene, police saw a possible second victim,
Antoine Hall, who likely was the actual target of the shooting.
(Mr. Hall had what appeared to have been a bullet hole in his leg
and in his pants.) However, Mr. Hall was very uncooperative: he
refused to talk to police and declined an ambulance ride to the
hospital. (N.T. 4/21/2010, pp. 50-52).
A witness on the scene wrote down the make, model, and
license plate number of the car from which the shots had been
fired and promptly conveyed the information to police. As a
result, the vehicle was found less than ten minutes after the
shooting was reported. (N.T. 4/21/2010, pp. 46-49;
4/22/20[10], pp. 6-9, 13-14).
Travis Truitt eventually cooperated with police by
identifying [Appellant] and Washington as his co-conspirators.
Truitt pleaded guilty to murder of the third degree and criminal
conspiracy. (N.T. 4/19/2010, pp. 40, 64-65, 97, 100, 109).
PCRA Court Opinion, 7/6/16, at 1–2, n.1. The PCRA court recounted the
procedural history, as follows:
On April 29, 2010, following a jury trial before this court,
[Appellant] was found guilty of murder of the first degree,
criminal conspiracy, and possessing an instrument of crime.
Also on April 29, 2009, this court imposed a sentence of life
imprisonment for the conviction of murder of the first degree.
[Appellant] also received concurrent terms of ten (10) to twenty
(20) years of imprisonment for the conviction of criminal
conspiracy and two and one-half (2½) to five (5) years of
imprisonment for possessing an instrument of crime. At trial,
[Appellant] was represented by Nino Tinari, Esquire[, who also
represented Appellant on direct appeal].
[Appellant] appealed, and on December 30, 2011, the
Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed [Appellant’s] judgments of
sentence. [Appellant’s] petition for allowance of appeal was
denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on May 15, 2012.
-2-
J-S89006-16
On March 15, 2013, [Appellant] filed a timely pro se
petition pursuant to the [PCRA]. . . . Janis Smarro, Esquire, was
subsequently appointed as [Appellant’s] counsel. On
September 2, 2014, Attorney Smarro filed an Amended PCRA
petition. On July 14, 2015, the Commonwealth filed a Motion to
Dismiss. On November 17, 2015, this court dismissed
[Appellant’s] PCRA petition for lack of merit.
On November 18, 2015, [Appellant’s] counsel filed a timely
Notice of Appeal, and on May 10, 2016, [Appellant] filed an
unsolicited Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
PCRA Court Opinion, 7/6/16, at 1–2 (footnotes omitted). The PCRA court
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
On appeal, Appellant raises the following questions for our review:
I. Is Appellant is [sic] entitled to post-conviction relief
in the form of a new trial or a remand for an evidentiary hearing
as a result of the ineffective assistance of trial counsel which
deprived Appellant of a fair and impartial trial and due process of
law in violation of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I,
section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution?
A. Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance of
counsel for failing to object at trial when the prosecutor
improperly vouched for the testimony of cooperating co-
conspirator Travis Truitt on direct examination constituting
prosecutorial misconduct which deprived Appellant of a fair and
impartial trial and due process of law in violation of his rights
under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution and Article I, section 9 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution?
B. Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance of
counsel for failing to pursue on appeal the issue of the trial
court’s error in failing to declare a mistrial when the prosecutor
committed misconduct when she improperly elicited from its
[sic] witness highly prejudicial evidence concerning Appellant’s
pre-arrest/post-Miranda silence in response to police questioning
in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
-3-
J-S89006-16
Constitution and Article I, section 9 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution depriving Appellant of his right not to be compelled
to give evidence against himself, due process of law, a fair and
impartial trial and meaningful and effective appellate review in
violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution and Articles I, section 9 and V, section
9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution?
C. Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance of
counsel for failing to pursue the issue on direct appeal that the
trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to introduce
various inadmissible out-of-court testimonial hearsay statements
through witnesses for the Commonwealth depriving Appellant of
his right to confront witnesses in violation of his rights under the
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Articles
I, section 9 and V, section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution?
D. Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance of
counsel for failing to object at trial when the trial court erred in
allowing the Commonwealth to introduce into evidence highly
prejudicial, irrelevant and inadmissible testimonial hearsay
statements when a witness for the Commonwealth testified on
direct examination that on the date of the incident an individual
told him that he was shot during the incident and refused
medical treatment depriving Appellant of his right to confront the
witnesses against him and a fair and impartial trial in violation of
his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Article I, section 9 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution?
E. Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance of
counsel for failing to pursue the issue on direct appeal that the
prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct at trial when the
prosecutor elicited inadmissible, irrelevant, highly inflammatory
and prejudicial character-propensity evidence on direct
examination of a witness for the Commonwealth depriving
Appellant of due process of law, a fair and impartial trial and
meaningful and effective appellate review in violation of his
rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution and Articles I, section 9 and V, section 9 of
the Pennsylvania Constitution?
Appellant’s Brief at 4–6.
-4-
J-S89006-16
When reviewing the propriety of an order denying PCRA relief, this
Court is limited to determining whether the evidence of record supports the
conclusions of the PCRA court and whether the ruling is free of legal error.
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178, 185 (Pa. 2016). The PCRA
court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for them in
the certified record. Commonwealth v. Lippert, 85 A.3d 1095, 1100 (Pa.
Super. 2014).
Appellant first presents a blanket averment of ineffective assistance of
counsel, which, he contends, warrants a new trial or evidentiary hearing.
Appellant’s Brief at 15. He then presents five specific claims: (A) counsel
failed to object to the prosecutor allegedly vouching for cooperating witness
Travis Truitt; (B) counsel failed to pursue on direct appeal whether the trial
court erred in denying a mistrial based on a detective’s reference to
Appellant’s pre-arrest silence; (C) counsel failed to pursue on direct appeal
the allegedly improper admission of testimonial hearsay; (D) counsel failed
to object to allegedly testimonial hearsay about another shooting victim who
refused medical treatment; and (E) counsel failed to pursue on direct appeal
the issue of prosecutorial misconduct based on the eliciting of prejudicial
character evidence from a Commonwealth witness. Id. at 19, 34, 40, 50,
and 54.
To plead and prove ineffective assistance of counsel a petitioner must
establish: (1) that the underlying issue has arguable merit; (2) counsel’s
-5-
J-S89006-16
actions lacked an objective reasonable basis; and (3) actual prejudice
resulted from counsel’s act or failure to act. Commonwealth v. Stewart,
84 A.3d 701, 706 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc). A claim of ineffectiveness
will be denied if the petitioner’s evidence fails to meet any one of these
prongs. Commonwealth v. Martin, 5 A.3d 177, 183 (Pa. 2010). Counsel
is presumed to have rendered effective assistance. Commonwealth v.
Montalvo, 114 A.3d 401, 410 (Pa. 2015). We have explained that trial
counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless claim.
Commonwealth v. Loner, 836 A.2d 125, 132 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc).
“We need not analyze the prongs of an ineffectiveness claim in any
particular order. Rather, we may discuss first any prong that an appellant
cannot satisfy under the prevailing law and the applicable facts and
circumstances of the case.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 139 A.3d 1257,
1272 (Pa. 2016) (citing Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 720 A.2d 693, 701
(Pa. 1998)).
Additionally, we note that a PCRA petitioner is not automatically
entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Commonwealth v. Wah, 42 A.3d 335,
338 (Pa. Super. 2012) (internal citations omitted). We review the PCRA
court’s decision dismissing a petition without a hearing for an abuse of
discretion. Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(citation omitted). On appeal, we examine the issues raised in light of the
record “to determine whether the PCRA court erred in concluding that there
-6-
J-S89006-16
were no genuine issues of material fact and in denying relief without an
evidentiary hearing.” Id.After reviewing the briefs of the parties, the certified record, and the
relevant authority, we conclude that the PCRA court’s opinion thoroughly
addresses and accurately disposes of Appellant’s claims. Because Appellant
did not raise any genuine issues of material fact, the PCRA court did not err
in denying relief without an evidentiary hearing. Miller, 102 A.3d at 992.
Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Appellant collateral relief, and we
do so on the basis of the PCRA court’s July 6, 2016 opinion.1
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/4/2017
____________________________________________
1
The parties are directed to attach a copy of the PCRA court opinion in the
event of further proceedings in this matter.
-7-
Circulated 12/07/2016 04:14 PM