Com. v. Dixon, D. ( 2017 )

J-S08002-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DARNELL DIXON
Appellant No. 148 WDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order dated December 25, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0017215-2008
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., and SOLANO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY SOLANO, J.: FILED MAY 25, 2017
Appellant, Darnell Dixon, appeals pro se from the order dismissing his
first petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§
9541-9546. We affirm.
The facts of this case have been fully and correctly set forth in the trial
court’s opinion dated May 8, 2012, and the PCRA court’s opinion dated
August 8, 2016. See Trial Ct. Op., 5/8/12, at 4-11, 14-15, 24; PCRA Ct.
Op., 8/8/16, at 12, 18, 23. On October 25, 2010, Appellant was convicted
by a jury of murder of the second degree, robbery, carrying firearms without
a license, and criminal conspiracy to commit robbery.1 A separate firearms
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(b), 3701(a)(1)(i), 6106(a)(1), and 903, respectively.
J-S08002-17
charge had been severed from the other four counts prior to the jury trial,
and, following a bench trial, Appellant was also convicted of that crime.2
The court ordered a pre-sentence investigation report, and, on
February 15, 2011, Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for
second-degree murder, to 10-20 years’ imprisonment for robbery, and to
10-20 years’ imprisonment for criminal conspiracy, with the latter sentences
to be served consecutively to each other and to the life imprisonment. He
received no further penalty on the remaining counts.
On February 22, 2011, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion,
and a hearing was held on June 20, 2011. At the conclusion of the hearing,
the motion was denied.
On July 8, 2011, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court.
On December 28, 2012, we “affirm[ed] the convictions, vacate[d] the
judgment of sentence for robbery, and affirm[ed] the judgment of sentence
for the remaining convictions.” Commonwealth v. Dixon, 1133 WDA
2011, at 1-2 (Pa. Super., Dec. 28, 2012) (unpublished memorandum),
appeal denied, 32 WAL 2013 (Pa. Oct. 9, 2013). Appellant filed a petition
for allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which was
denied on October 9, 2013.
Appellant filed this timely pro se PCRA petition on March 3, 2014. On
May 12, 2014, the PCRA court appointed Charles Pass III, Esquire, to
____________________________________________
2
18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(2)(i).
-2-
J-S08002-17
represent Appellant. On June 2, 2014, Attorney Pass filed a Turner/Finley3
letter with a memorandum and a request to withdraw as PCRA counsel. On
July 7, 2014, the PCRA court granted Attorney Pass’ request to withdraw and
sent a notice to Appellant of its intention to dismiss his PCRA petition
pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). The PCRA court gave Appellant 30 days to
file a response to this Rule 907 Notice.
On July 22, 2014, the court docketed Appellant’s “Notice with Court
Explaining How Defendant Wishes to Proceed,” in which he stated that “he is
notifying this Honorable Court that he is proceeding Pr[o]-Se” (emphasis
removed) and that “he will be notifying this Honorable Court why court-
appointed counsel, Charles R. Pass, III should not be permitted to withdraw
as counsel in regards to the above-entitled matter,” even though Attorney
Pass had already been allowed to withdraw by the PCRA court.
On September 21, 2014,4 Appellant filed a pro se motion for leave to
amend his PCRA petition, in which he stated that he wished to amend so he
could add a claim that Attorney Pass “rendered ineffective assistance of
counsel.” On March 16, 2015, the PCRA court entered an order that
____________________________________________
3
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth
v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
4
The certificate of service was dated September 21, 2014, and the court
docketed the filing on September 30, 2014. See Commonwealth v.
Whitehawk, 146 A.3d 266, 268 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2016) (under the “prisoner
mailbox rule,” a document is deemed filed when placed in the hands of
prison authorities for mailing).
-3-
J-S08002-17
appointed Alan R. Patterson III, Esquire, as Appellant’s new PCRA counsel.
In that same order, the PCRA court stated the following regarding
Appellant’s motion for leave to amend his PCRA petition: “[t]he motion is
returned to defendant for amendment as follows, such amendment to be
made on or before, May 4, 2015, or counsel to advise that no amendment is
necessary.” The order thus directed Appellant’s new counsel, Attorney
Patterson, to review Appellant’s proposed amendment and to decide whether
it should be filed. Mr. Patterson never filed Appellant’s proposed amended
PCRA petition or any amended PCRA petition.
On September 16, 2015, Attorney Patterson filed a Turner/Finley
petition to withdraw as counsel, averring that he analyzed Appellant’s
September 21, 2014, pro se petition to amend his PCRA petition and
concluded there were no meritorious issues. Pet. to Withdraw as Counsel
under Turner & Finley, 9/16/15, at 1-2 (unpaginated). The PCRA court,
“after reviewing that letter and the memorandum accompanying that letter,”
granted the petition to withdraw on October 26, 2015, and sent Appellant a
notice of its intention to dismiss on October 26, 2015.” See PCRA Ct. Op.,
8/8/16, at 3. The court’s order and notice stated:
It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Defendant must file a notice with this Court within thirty (30)
days of this Order, which will explain how he wishes to proceed.
If no such notification is filed within thirty (30) days, the Court
will enter a final Order dismissing the post-conviction petition.
-4-
J-S08002-17
Appellant never filed a response to this second Rule 907 Notice, and, on
December 1, 2015, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s PCRA petition. On
December 25, 2015, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court.
In his pro se appeal, Appellant raises the following issues, as stated in
his brief:
I. Whether in reviewing the [propriety] of the PCRA court’s
dismissal of Appellant’s PCRA filing, it was an abuse of discretion
for the PCRA court to accept the Turner/Finley “no-merit”
letters filed by Appellant’s PCRA counsels when those letters did
not meet the standards set forth in Commonwealth v.
Mosteller, 633 A.2d 615 (Pa.Super. 1993) in reference to the
following sub-claims:
1. Trial-Counsel was ineffective for failing to
object to the addition of a firearms charge after the
Preliminary Hearing;
2. Trial Counsel was ineffective for faili[n]g to
object to the DNA identification discovered on the
firearm;
3. Counsel was ineffective for failing to
[undertake] a pre-Trial investigation as to whether
or not the T-shirt produced at the time of Trial
actually came from Ross-Store or was part of his
inventory at the time of the crime;
4. Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing []to
object to the absence of the signature of the District
Attorney on the Police Criminal Complaint filed in this
matter - Pa.R.Crim.P. 504;
5. Trial Counsel was ineffective for not seeking to
wit[h]draw as Counsel once he found out that the
Defendant had filed a civil suit against him;
6. Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to
preserve the issue that a thorough inventory of the
truck was not conducted;
-5-
J-S08002-17
7. Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to
challenge the introduction of the twenty-two (22)
caliber handgun which he maintains was seen in the
hands of his co-defendant;
8. Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to
object to the prosecutor’s argument that [Appellant]
put the gun in the back of the co-defendant’s truck
as a stash spot;
9. Trial Counsel was in[e]ffective for failing to
conduct a pre-Trial investigation of the truck,
fingerprints and back of the truck where the gun was
placed since he believed that this investigation would
have exonerated him;
10. Appella[te] Counsel was [i]neffective for failing
to raise the claims of the ineffectiveness of Trial
Counsel on Direct-Appeal where the record was
preserved;
11. Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to
object to the Commonwealth’s pre[e]mptory strike
[challenges];
12. Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to file a
motion to Dismiss charge against him on a violation
of his Rule 600 rights;
13. Trial Counsel was ineffective in failing to object
to the language employed by the Trial Court in
defining reasonable doubt to the jury;
14. Trial Counsel was ineffective in failing to object
to the charge given to the jury on Second-degree
Murder;
15. Trial Counsel was ineffective in failing to
investigate and to develop an [adequate] Trial
strategy;
16. All Counsels from Trial Counsel through
Appellate Counsel were ineffective for failing to raise
-6-
J-S08002-17
the claims of ineffectiveness of Appellant’s trial
Counsel;
17. Trial Counsel was ineffective in failing to obtain
his own DNA expert.
18. Trial Counsel was ineffective for not
withdrawing from the case once he determined there
was a conflict of interest since [Appellant] had filed a
Civil suit against him;
19. The Trial Court erred when it did not include
[Appellant]’s first sentencing hearing where Trial
Counsel was forced to withdraw from the case;
20. Trial Counsel was ineffective in failing to object
to the Trial Court’s vouching to the expertise of a
witness on behalf of the Commonwealth;
21. There was a violation of the Brady Rule in that
while Appellant was in the jail he had surgery to
remove the bullet lodged in his back and he wanted
the bullet to be presented into evidence maintaining
that this bullet would demonstrate that he did not
shoot the decease[d] Mr. Ross, b[e]cause it was the
same caliber-bullet that inflicted the fatal wound to
Mr. Ross.
22. Violation of due process rights of Appellant in
that he did not have transcripts of the proceedings at
the time of the hearing on his petition for Post-
Conviction Relief;
23. The verdicts [a]gainst Appellant were a result
of the cumulative errors previously presented.
II. Whether the PCRA court erred and denied Appellant his
federal and state constitutional rights to due process of law by
dismissing Appellant’s initial PCRA petition without an evidentiary
hearing. . . where Appellant raised substantial questions of
disputed facts regarding his conviction?
III. Whether initial PCRA counsel rendered ineffective
assistance . . . of counsel based on the filing of a Turner/Finley
-7-
J-S08002-17
“no-merit” letter and this Honorable Court should disapprove the
[PCRA] court’s adoption of appointed PCRA counsels’ Finley “no-
merit” letter analysis and reasoning and remand this matter to
the PCRA court for a proper Rule 1925(a) opinion in reference to
the afore-mentioned claims of ineffective assistance of counsel?
Appellant’s Brief at 4-6 (internal brackets and parentheses omitted).
Our standard of review of a PCRA court’s denial of a PCRA petition is
limited to examining whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported by
the record evidence and free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Wilson,
824 A.2d 331, 333 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc), appeal denied, 839 A.2d
352 (Pa. 2003).
Appellant’s first and third issues (including all 23 subparts of the first
issue) allege ineffective assistance of counsel claims against Attorney Pass
and Attorney Patterson. Those claims were waived.
On September 21, 2014, Appellant filed a pro se motion for leave to
amend his PCRA petition, in which he stated that he wished to amend so
that he could add a claim that Attorney Pass “rendered ineffective assistance
of counsel.” Mot. for Leave to Amend/Supplement Pet. for Post Conviction
Relief, 9/21/14. In its order of March 16, 2015, the PCRA court appointed
Attorney Patterson as counsel and wrote: “[t]he motion [for leave to
amend] is returned to defendant for amendment as follows, such
amendment to be made on or before, May 4, 2015, or counsel to advise that
no amendment is necessary.” Order, 3/16/15. Attorney Patterson then filed
a petition to withdraw as counsel, in which he said that he reviewed
-8-
J-S08002-17
Appellant’s September 2014 pro se motion and concluded that “no
meritorious issues exist to review.” He thus concluded that any ineffective
assistance of counsel claims against Attorney Pass lacked merit, and he did
not file Appellant’s amendment, as directed by the PCRA court’s order.
Instead, in the words of the court’s order, Attorney Patterson “advise[d] that
no amendment [was] necessary.” See Order, 3/16/15.
Appellant had an opportunity to respond to Attorney Patterson’s
statements to the court, but he did not do so. In Commonwealth v.
Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal denied, 64 A.3d 631 (Pa.
2013), this Court stated that “a petitioner waives issues of PCRA counsel’s
effectiveness regarding Turner/Finley requirements if he declines to
respond to the PCRA court’s notice of intent to dismiss.” Id. at 1186
(citation omitted). Since Appellant did not file a response to the PCRA
court’s notice of intent to dismiss, he may not now challenge the correctness
of Attorney Patterson’s conclusion that there was no merit to any allegation
that Attorney Pass was ineffective. Moreover, Appellant’s failure to respond
to the PCRA court’s order of October 26, 2015, which notified Appellant of
the court’s intention to dismiss, waived not only Appellant’s claims of
ineffectiveness against Attorney Pass, but also those against Attorney
-9-
J-S08002-17
Patterson. See id. at 1186. Therefore, Appellant is not entitled to relief on
any of his first and third issues.5
Appellant also waived his second issue, which challenges the PCRA
court’s dismissal of his PCRA petition without a hearing, because he did not
include that issue in his Rule 1925(b) Statement. An issue that is not
included in a Rule 1925(b) statement cannot be raised for the first time on
an appeal to this Court. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a), 1925(b); Commonwealth
v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005) (“Any issues not raised in a
Pa.R.A.P.1925(b) statement will be deemed waived”). Hence, we may not
address this issue.
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the order dismissing
Appellant’s petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act.
Order affirmed.
____________________________________________
5
We acknowledge that the PCRA court opted to address the merits of
Appellant’s issues. However, we may affirm on any basis. Mariner
Chestnut Partners, L.P. v. Lenfest, 152 A.3d 265, 277 (Pa. Super. 2016).
Moreover, we have carefully reviewed the record, and we conclude that even
if Appellant had properly preserved his claims, we would hold that none of
his issues, including his twenty-three subclaims under Issue I, had merit.
- 10 -
J-S08002-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/25/2017
- 11 -