Com. v. Riddick, E. ( 2017 )

J-S59041-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
ERIC RIDDICK
Appellant No. 3480 EDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order October 14, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0141361-1992
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED DECEMBER 26, 2017
Appellant, Eric Riddick, appeals pro se from the order entered in the
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his second Post
Conviction Relief Act1 (“PCRA”) petition as untimely. Appellant argues the
PCRA’s newly discovered facts exception excuses the untimeliness of his
petition. We affirm.
In June 1992, a jury found Appellant guilty of, inter alia, first-degree
murder2 in connection with the shooting death of William Catlett on
November 6, 1991. The trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment.
This Court affirmed on direct appeal, and our Supreme Court denied his
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
2
18 Pa.C.S. § 2502.
J-S59041-17
petition for allowance of appeal on May 31, 1995. Commonwealth v.
Riddick, 659 A.2d 6 (Pa. Super. 1995) (unpublished memorandum), appeal
denied, 663 A.2d 689 (1995). Appellant did not appeal to the United States
Supreme Court, so his judgment of sentence became final for PCRA purposes
at the end of August 1995.
On March 31, 2003, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition. Counsel
was appointed to represent him and filed an amended petition. The
Honorable Amanda Cooperman denied PCRA relief on the ground that
Appellant’s petition was untimely. This Court affirmed, and our Supreme
Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal on January 27,
2009. See Commonwealth v. Riddick, 959 A.2d 467 (Pa. Super. 2008)
(unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 964 A.2d 895 (Pa. 2009).
On October 21, 2009, Appellant filed a second PCRA petition, and the
PCRA court appointed counsel to represent Appellant. On October 31, 2012,
William Conrad, a forensic firearms examiner, submitted an expert report to
Appellant’s counsel opining that Appellant did not fire the shots that killed
the victim. On May 17, 2013, counsel filed an amended petition claiming
that Conrad’s report constituted newly discovered fact of Appellant’s
innocence. In addition, Appellant alleged that Shawn Stevenson, the only
eyewitness to the crime, had recanted, and that a second witness, Robert
Gordon, had come forward alleging that Appellant was not one of the
shooters. Appellant’s petition included Gordon’s affidavit signed on February
-2-
J-S59041-17
22, 2013, more than sixty days before the counsel filed an amended
petition.
On February 15, 2015, Judge Cooperman determined that the newly
discovered facts exception to the PCRA time-bar applied and granted
Appellant a hearing limited to his ballistic evidence claim. Judge Cooperman
granted a hearing out of concern that the ballistic evidence appeared to
exclude Appellant as a shooter. The bullets entered the victim’s body on an
upward trajectory, but Appellant allegedly was positioned on a balcony,
fifteen feet above the victim, so any bullets that he fired would have had a
downward trajectory.
Judge Cooperman recused herself, and the case was re-assigned to
the Honorable Jeffrey Mineheart. On October 31, 2016, following an
evidentiary hearing, Judge Mineheart issued an order denying PCRA relief.
Judge Mineheart held a Grazier3 hearing, determined that Appellant’s
waiver of counsel was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and dismissed
PCRA counsel from the case. This timely pro se appeal followed.
Judge Mineheart issued his Pa.R.A.P. 1925 opinion without ordering
Appellant to file a statement of matters complained of on appeal. In his
opinion, Judge Mineheart expressly disagreed with Judge Cooperman’s prior
order that the newly discovered facts exception to the PCRA applied. In his
3
Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).
-3-
J-S59041-17
view, Appellant’s PCRA petition was time-barred. PCRA Ct. Op., 12/12/16,
at 3-7.
Appellant raises the following issues in this appeal, which we re-order
for purposes of convenience:
(a). Did the PCRA court commit error by dismissing
Appellant’s second petition for post[-]conviction relief as
untimely [and by] adjudicating that [the] ballistic expert’s
report was not a new fact and thus did not fit within the
[newly discovered fact] exception [to the PCRA’s one year
statute of limitations][?]
(b). Did the PCRA court commit error by reversing the
reasoned order/adjudication of its predecessor judge
(Judge Amanda Cooperman) of coordinate jurisdiction,
where neither [the] facts nor [the] law had changed[?]
(c). Was PCRA counsel ineffective for failing to be prepared
at the evidentiary hearing [and] failing to effectively
extrapolate with clarity the exculpatory scientific facts of
the forensic expert’s testimony and report[?]
(d). Was appointed PCRA counsel, Barnaby C. Wittels,
ineffective for disregarding Appellant’s directions to appeal
the arbitrary recusal of Judge Amanda Cooperman[?]
(e). Did the PCRA court commit error by failing to hold an
evidentiary hearing of the newly discovered fact (i.e. court
document/witness and exhibit list) upon which trial
counsel’s failure to present [an] alibi claim was
predicated[?]
(f). Did the PCRA court commit error and abuse its
discretion when it failed to address, consider and
adjudicate on record, Appellant’s oral challenge to the
constitutionality of the 1991 amendments to the [PCRA
statute] and the restrictions therefrom[?]
(g). Did the PCRA court commit error and abuse its
discretion when it failed to hold an evidentiary hearing on
the Stevenson affidavit/recantation and counsel Wittel’s
-4-
J-S59041-17
declaration that on November 8, 2012, Stevenson came to
his law office and reiterated his retraction, providing new
facts with specific[ity][?]
(h). Did the PCRA court commit error when it dismissed
Appellant’s issue regarding the Robert Gordon affidavit
without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing[?]
(i). Did the PCRA court commit error and abuse its
discretion when it failed to properly address the multiple
on-record assertions by Appellant that he was not being
represented by appointed counsel to [the] level of
effectiveness[?]
(j). In light of the extraordinary circumstances of this case,
did the PCRA court commit error by not activating its
inherent power to further inquire into the record and
intertwining issue[s] relevant to [a] prima facie showing a
miscarriage of justice "may" have occur[red], adjudicating
on the overwhelming indications of actual innocence[?]
Appellant’s Brief at 2-3 (with grammatical revisions).
“Our standard of review of a PCRA court’s dismissal of a PCRA petition
is limited to examining whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported
by the evidence of record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v.
Wilson, 824 A.2d 331, 333 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc) (citation omitted).
As our Supreme Court has explained:
the PCRA timeliness requirements are jurisdictional in
nature and, accordingly, a PCRA court is precluded from
considering untimely PCRA petitions. We have also held
that even where the PCRA court does not address the
applicability of the PCRA timing mandate, th[e] Court will
consider the issue sua sponte, as it is a threshold question
implicating our subject matter jurisdiction and ability to
grant the requested relief.
-5-
J-S59041-17
Commonwealth v. Whitney, 817 A.2d 473, 477-78 (Pa. 2003) (citations
omitted).
A PCRA petition “must normally be filed within one year of the date the
judgment becomes final[.]” Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 941 A.2d
646, 648 (Pa. 2007) (some citations and footnote omitted). Pursuant to 42
Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3), “[a] judgment becomes final at the conclusion of
direct review by this Court or the United States Supreme Court, or at the
expiration of the time seeking such review.” Commonwealth v. Jones, 54
A.3d 14, 17 (Pa. 2012) (citations omitted).
A petitioner who files a PCRA petition beyond the one-year time limit
must plead and prove one of the three exceptions to the PCRA timeliness
requirements. Commonwealth v. Johnston, 42 A.3d 1120, 1126 (Pa.
Super. 2012) (“If the petition is determined to be untimely, and no
exception has been pled and proven, the petition must be dismissed without
a hearing because Pennsylvania courts are without jurisdiction to consider
the merits of the petition” (citation omitted)). These three exceptions are:
(i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result
of interference by government officials with the
presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or
laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of
the United States;
(ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were
unknown to the petitioner and could not have been
ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or
(iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was
recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or
-6-
J-S59041-17
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period
provided in this section and has been held by that court to
apply retroactively.
42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). Any petition invoking one or more of these
exceptions must be “filed within sixty days of the date the claim could have
been presented.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2); Copenhefer, 941 A.2d at 648.
We review the first two issues together, because they concern the
same question: whether the PCRA court erred by concluding that the
October 31, 2012 expert report of forensic firearms examiner William Conrad
was not newly discovered fact. We hold that the PCRA court made the
correct decision.
Conrad stated at the beginning of his three-page report that he
reviewed (1) a police report from the date of the victim’s death, (2) a
postmortem report of the medical examiner, (3) photocopies of crime scene
photographs, (4) diagrams of the crime scene and the victim, and (5) the
transcript from Appellant’s trial. The report did not claim that any of these
documents were unavailable, or outside the public domain, at the time of
trial in 1992. To the contrary, the record demonstrates that the trial court
admitted the first four items as exhibits into evidence during trial. The trial
transcript was prepared following trial.
Conrad opined that the ballistics evidence demonstrated that Appellant
did not fire the shots that killed the victim, because Appellant allegedly was
fifteen feet above the victim, yet the bullets entered the victim’s body on an
-7-
J-S59041-17
upward trajectory. Appellant’s Brief, exhibit A (“Conrad’s report”). Conrad
further observed that trial testimony indicated that Appellant was in
possession of a rifle, yet none of the bullets came from a rifle. Id. More
specifically, according to Conrad, (1) the medical examiner found .32 and
.22 caliber bullets in the victim’s body; (2) the .32 caliber bullets could only
come from a revolver, not a rifle; (3) had a .22 caliber rifle been fired, police
would have recovered .22 caliber cartridge cases at the crime scene; and (4)
the police did not recover any .22 caliber cartridge cases, so the .22 caliber
bullets came from a revolver, not a rifle.
Although Conrad’s report makes interesting—and perhaps compelling—
points, we are constrained to deny Appellant relief in view of two recent
decisions: Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. 2013), and
Commonwealth v. Smallwood, 155 A.3d 1054 (Pa. Super. 2017). In
Edmiston, the defendant argued that his PCRA petition was timely because
he filed it within sixty days after publication of a National Academy of
Science report detailing the imprecision of microscopic hair analysis. Our
Supreme Court held that the PCRA petition was untimely, and that the newly
discovered fact exception did not apply, because the information on which
the report rested had been in the public domain for years before the report.
Edmiston, 65 A.3d at 352. In order for a study to satisfy the newly
discovered fact exception, the Court said, the information “may not be part
of a public record.” Id. (citation omitted). Moreover, the defendant must
-8-
J-S59041-17
allege and prove previously unknown “facts,” not merely a “newly discovered
or newly willing source for previously known facts.” Id. (citation omitted).
In Smallwood, the defendant was convicted of arson and first-degree
murder in 1973. Forty years later, in 2014, the defendant moved for PCRA
relief on the basis of an expert opinion that the Commonwealth’s evidence
failed to prove arson under national fire protection standards (“the NFPA
standard”) adopted in 1992 and revised several times thereafter. The
defendant first learned of this standard in 1999 and then “spent immense
time and effort over the next fifteen years attempting to find evidence of the
construction of the subject building so that her expert could offer an
alternative theory as to the cause of the fire.” Smallwood, 155 A.3d at
1063. The PCRA court granted the defendant a new trial, but this Court
reversed.
While we acknowledged that the NFPA standard was a new fact that
the defendant could not have discovered at the time of trial, we held that
she waited too long to request relief on the basis of this fact:
This case is deeply troubling on several levels. There is no
doubt in this Court’s opinion that the expert currently
retained would give an opinion that the fire that occurred
on August 29, 1971 was of undetermined origin. From the
evidence available and the current state of “fire science,” it
is likely that the Commonwealth’s expert might well
concede that fact. It seems axiomatic that a jury hearing
[the defendant’s] statements and the evidence in light of
the uncertainty of the origin of the fire might well reach a
different conclusion as to [her] guilt than that determined
by the original jury who heard [the Commonwealth’s
expert] testimony that the fire was of incendiary origin.
-9-
J-S59041-17
What remains incomprehensible is why [the defendant],
who clearly knew about the advancements in fire science
as early as 1999, waited until March 14, 2014, to file a
petition for post-conviction relief based upon this new fact.
Even her own expert opines that the 2014 version of the
NFPA is a refinement rather than a revision of the 1992
NFPA, so the fact relied upon by [the defendant] was in
the public domain as early as 1992 and [the defendant]
knew of it in 1999. [The defendant] did not file her
petition within 60 days of the 1999 occurrence. Our focus
is not on the date the expert published his opinion, but on
the [defendant’s] “reasonable efforts” to bring forth the
newly discovered fact of the NFPA 921 standards based on
the information that was publicly available and accessible
to her, and any number of experts, for years.
Id. at 1070 (footnote omitted).
In view of Edmiston and Smallwood, we are constrained to conclude
that Appellant cannot obtain relief on the basis of Conrad’s expert report.
This case, like Smallwood, is deeply troubling, since Conrad’s report points
out that the case against Appellant is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile
with the ballistics evidence. Unfortunately, it is clear that all information
used by Conrad was in the public domain at the time of trial in 1992.4 Like
the experts in Edmiston and Smallwood, Conrad was nothing more than a
“newly willing source for previously known facts.” Edmiston, 65 A.3d at
352. Thus, Appellant did not demonstrate due diligence in seeking PCRA
relief on the basis of this evidence.
4
Neither does Conrad’s methodology appear to be new or different. Conrad
merely applies sound logic to an existing set of facts.
- 10 -
J-S59041-17
Appellant complains that the coordinate jurisdiction doctrine prohibited
Judge Mineheart from overruling Judge Cooperman’s ruling that Appellant’s
PCRA petition was timely. It is well settled, however, that an appellate court
can affirm the PCRA court on any ground. See Commonwealth v. Judge,
916 A.2d 511, 517 n. 11 (Pa. 2007). It is equally clear that we may sua
sponte determine whether a PCRA petition is timely. See Commonwealth
v. Hutchins, 760 A.2d 50, 53 (Pa. Super. 2000). Thus, even if the
coordinate jurisdiction rule applies, we have the authority to affirm Judge
Mineheart’s order for any reason appearing in the record. As discussed
above, the record makes plain that Conrad’s report does not constitute
newly discovered fact.
Before turning to Appellant’s remaining arguments, we note that the
defendant in Smallwood has appealed to the Supreme Court, which has yet
to rule on her petition for allowance of appeal. Conceivably, the Supreme
Court’s decisions in Smallwood might change the law in this area. At
present, however, we have no choice but to deny Appellant’s argument
under the existing law.
In his third argument, Appellant argues that PCRA counsel provided
ineffective assistance by failing to prepare for the PCRA evidentiary hearing
and failing to present exculpatory facts within Conrad’s testimony and
report. No relief is due for two reasons. First, this Court has held that
“absent recognition of a constitutional right to effective collateral review
- 11 -
J-S59041-17
counsel, claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness cannot be raised for the first
time after a notice of appeal has been taken from the underlying PCRA
matter.” Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1201 (Pa. Super. 2012).
Because Appellant did not raise PCRA counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness
before filing his appeal, he cannot raise it in this Court. Id. Second, as
discussed above, Conrad’s report and testimony is not newly discovered fact
and therefore does not entitle Appellant to relief.
In his fourth argument, Appellant contends that PCRA counsel was
ineffective for failing to object to Judge Cooperman’s recusal. Once again,
Appellant did not raise this issue before filing his appeal, so he cannot raise
it in this Court. Id.
In his fifth argument, Appellant contends that trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to call three alibi witnesses during trial. Appellant
claims to have discovered this fact through review of the witness and exhibit
list prepared during trial. He further claims that the witness and exhibit list
is newly discovered fact. We disagree. The witness and exhibit list has been
in the trial record since trial in 1992. Appellant fails to explain why he did
not raise a claim of ineffectiveness on the basis of the witness and exhibit
list until the present stage of this case, two decades after his judgment of
sentence became final. Thus, this argument is time-barred. See 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 9545(b)(1)(ii) (newly discovered fact exception to PCRA’s statute of
limitations is not fulfilled unless petitioner demonstrates that “the facts upon
- 12 -
J-S59041-17
which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not
have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence”).
Sixth, Appellant argues that the PCRA court erred by denying his
verbal challenge to the constitutionality of the PCRA’s statute of limitations
during his evidentiary hearing. To begin with, Appellant waived this issue by
failing to plead it in his amended PCRA petition. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)
(to be eligible for relief under PCRA, petitioner must both “plead and prove”
all requisites for relief). In any event, our Supreme Court has held that the
PCRA’s statute of limitations is constitutional. See Commonwealth v.
Cruz, 852 A.2d 287, 292 (Pa. 2004). Thus, no relief is due.
Seventh, Appellant argues that the PCRA court erred by failing to hold
an evidentiary hearing relating to the recantation of Shawn Stevenson.
Stevenson identified Appellant as the gunman at trial but signed an affidavit
in 1999 averring that he lied on the stand. This issue was previously raised
in Appellant’s first PCRA petition but rejected by the PCRA court. This Court
affirmed the order dismissing the first PCRA petition. See Riddick, 959
A.2d at 467. Accordingly, this issue is barred as previously litigated. See
42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(a)(3) (issue is “previously litigated” if “it has been raised
and decided in a proceeding collaterally attacking the conviction or
sentence”).
Eighth, Appellant argues that the PCRA court erred by failing to hold
an evidentiary hearing relating to Robert Gordon, who signed an affidavit on
- 13 -
J-S59041-17
February 22, 2013 stating that he saw two men shoot the victim, neither of
whom were Appellant.5 This argument is time-barred, because Appellant did
not file his amended PCRA petition based on this affidavit until May 17,
2013. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii), (2) (claim of newly discovered fact
must be filed “within 60 days of the date the claim could have been
presented”).
Ninth, Appellant argues that the PCRA court failed to address his
assertions on the record that PCRA counsel was providing ineffective
assistance. To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, an
appellant must demonstrate (1) that the underlying claim is of arguable
merit; (2) that counsel's performance lacked a reasonable basis; and (3)
that the ineffectiveness of counsel caused the appellant prejudice.
Commonwealth v. Pierce, 786 A.2d 203, 213 (Pa. 2001). Appellant’s brief
makes clear that he accuses PCRA counsel of ineffective assistance merely
because Appellant and counsel were arguing at one point during the PCRA
evidentiary hearing. Appellant’s Brief at 34-35. Since this does not
demonstrate arguable merit, Appellant’s claim fails.
Finally, Appellant argues that the PCRA court erred by failing to
consider “extraordinary circumstances” such as “overwhelming indications of
5
Gordon averred that he did not come forth sooner with this information
because he “was so young at the time [that his] mother didn’t want [him]
getting involved with it because she feared for [his] life.” Appellant’s Brief,
exhibit Q.
- 14 -
J-S59041-17
actual innocence.” Appellant’s Brief at 3. However, claims of miscarriage of
justice or actual innocence do not constitute an exception to the PCRA’s
timeliness requirements. See Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223
(Pa. 1999).
For these reasons, the PCRA court properly denied Appellant’s
amended PCRA petition.
Order affirmed.
Judge Ott Joins the Memorandum.
P.J.E. Bender files a Concurring Statement in which Justice Fitzgerald
joins.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/26/2017
- 15 -