Com. v. Marchalk, M. ( 2022 )

J-S35031-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MICHAEL DAVID MARCHALK :
:
Appellant : No. 136 MDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 17, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-54-CR-0001407-2017
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: DECEMBER 12, 2022
Michael David Marchalk appeals pro se from the December 17, 2021
order dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act
(“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. After careful review, we affirm.1
The PCRA court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history
of this case as follows:
[Appellant] suffered from a substance abuse disorder;
he and his father, Gary Marchalk, who was the victim
in the instant matter, had a strained relationship; on
the day of the murder, the victim and [Appellant] were
involved in a disagreement related to [Appellant’s]
request for money to purchase Suboxone or Heroin
before entering a substance abuse rehabilitation
center (“rehab”); the victim allowed [Appellant] to
temporarily reside at the victim’s residence until he
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 The Commonwealth has not filed a brief in this matter.
J-S35031-22
entered the rehab; the murder occurred in the victim’s
bedroom at his residence; [Appellant] entered the
bedroom complaining that he could not sleep; the
victim was lying on his bed; the victim swung a bat at
[Appellant], who blocked the bat with his arm;
[Appellant] threw an iron against the wall above the
victim’s bed; the victim moved back and [Appellant]
charged him; the victim hit [Appellant] with the bat
again; [Appellant] took the bat and struck the victim
five or six times„ which resulted in his death; and
[Appellant] testified at his jury trial that he hit the
victim with the bat because he was in disbelief that
his father had swung the bat at him.
....
Following a jury trial on December 13, 2018,
[Appellant] was found guilty of third-degree murder;
theft by unlawful taking, access device fraud, and
possession of an instrument of crime. On January 22,
2019, [Appellant] was sentenced to twenty-four and
one-half to forty[-]nine years of imprisonment.
[Appellant] directly appealed his conviction, in which
he challenged the Court’s jury instruction relating to
evidence of “heat of passion[,]” and the
Commonwealth’s duty to prove the absence of “[heat]
of passion[.]” On November 25, 2019, the Superior
Court affirmed the judgment of sentence. [See
Commonwealth v. Marchalk, 224 A.3d 794(Pa.Super. 2019) (unpublished memorandum).] On
November 17, 2020, [Appellant] filed a PCRA petition,
in which he alleged that he planned to raise several
claims of ineffectiveness of counsel against his court-
appointed counsel, Andrea L. Thompson, Esquire
[(hereinafter, “Attorney Thompson” or “trial
counsel”)].
By Order dated December 10, 2020, Adam Weaver,
Esquire [(hereinafter, “Attorney Weaver” or “PCRA
counsel”)] was appointed to represent [Appellant],
and was afforded leave to file an amended PCRA
petition. On or about April 1, 2021, Attorney Weaver
filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and a
-2-
J-S35031-22
Turner/Finley[2] No Merit Letter. By Order dated
April 06, 2021, [the PCRA court] issued a notice
informing [Appellant] of the Court’s intention to
dismiss his PCRA petition without a hearing, and
further granted Attorney Weaver’s Petition to
Withdraw as counsel. On April 29, 2021, [Appellant]
filed his response to the notice to dismiss, in which he
raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
against Attorney Weaver, and requested a new court
appointed PCRA counsel. By Order of Court dated May
19, 2021, Jeffrey M. Markosky, Esquire [(hereinafter,
“Attorney Markosky” or “PCRA counsel”)] was
appointed to represent [Appellant] on his layered
ineffectiveness claims. On October 29, 2021,
Attorney Markosky filed a No Merit Letter and Petition
to Withdraw as Counsel of Record. On November 4,
2021, [the PCRA court] entered a second Notice of
Intention to Dismiss without Hearing Pursuant to
Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, which further permitted Attorney
Markosky to withdraw as counsel. On November 10,
2021, [Appellant] filed a “Petition for Relief,”
[wherein] he alleged that Attorney Markosky was
ineffective as PCRA counsel, and requested that either
new counsel be appointed or that [Appellant] be
permitted to proceed pro se. By Order of Court dated,
December 17, 2021, [Appellant’s] PCRA petition was
dismissed.
PCRA court opinion, 3/16/22 at 1-3 (footnotes omitted).
Appellant, who is incarcerated, filed a pro se notice of appeal that was
incorrectly submitted to this Court on January 18, 2022 and not received by
the trial court until January 21, 2022 — three days after the expiration of the
30-day appeal period. Appellant’s notice of appeal had to be filed by Tuesday,
____________________________________________
2 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc).
-3-
J-S35031-22
January 18, 2022, because the 30th day of the appeal period fell on Sunday,
January 16, 2022, and Monday, January 17, 2022, was a court holiday. See
Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) (notice of appeal shall be filed within 30 days after the entry
of the order from which the appeal is taken); 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908 (whenever
the last day of the appeal period falls on a weekend or on any legal holiday,
such day shall be omitted from the computation of time).
We find that Appellant’s untimely appeal can be excused by the prisoner
mailbox rule. Under this rule, “a pro se prisoner’s document is deemed filed
on the date he delivers it to prison authorities for mailing.” Commonwealth
v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34, 38 (Pa.Super. 2011) (citation omitted), appeal
denied, 46 A.3d 715 (Pa. 2012). Generally, “any reasonably verifiable
evidence of the date that the prisoner deposits” his notice of appeal with prison
authorities is acceptable to satisfy this rule, including a certificate of mailing
or a post-marked envelope. See Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423,
426 (Pa. 1997).
Here, the record does not contain any evidence indicating when
Appellant’s notice of appeal was deposited with prison authorities. However,
given the fact that this Court was in receipt of Appellant’s notice of appeal on
January 18, 2022, prior to its transfer to the Schuylkill County Clerk of Courts,
it is reasonable to presume that Appellant placed it in the hands of prison
authorities for mailing on or before that date. See Commonwealth v.
Patterson, 931 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 2007) (even without postmark
-4-
J-S35031-22
definitively noting date of mailing, a panel may avoid quashal where date of
receipt indicates that appellant likely placed notice of appeal in hands of prison
authorities before the expiration of thirty days). Accordingly, we have
jurisdiction over this appeal.3, 4
Appellant has filed a 12-page, handwritten pro se brief wherein he
raises the following issues for our review:
A. Whether [t]rial counsel, [Attorney Thompson]
was ineffective?
B. Whether [p]re-trial counsel, Kent Watkins, was
ineffective?
C. Whether [the trial court] failed to instruct the
jury properly on several occasions?
D. Whether [the trial court] prejudiced the jury
against [Appellant] with improper sentencing
instructions?
____________________________________________
3 Appellant and the PCRA court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
4Alternatively, we note that Appellant’s notice of appeal filed on January 18,
2022 may also be deemed timely pursuant to Rule 905(a)(4), which provides
as follows:
If a notice of appeal is mistakenly filed in an appellate
court, or is otherwise filed in an incorrect office within
the unified judicial system, the clerk shall immediately
stamp it with the date of receipt and transmit it to the
clerk of the court which entered the order appealed
from, and upon payment of an additional filing fee the
notice of appeal shall be deemed filed in the trial court
on the date originally filed.
Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(4).
-5-
J-S35031-22
E. Whether [the trial court] allowed expert
testimony while refusing [Appellant’s] motion
for an expert on his behalf?
F. Whether [the trial court] judge should have
recused himself due to victim previously
working in [the] courthouse and victim’s wife
being the County Treasurer?
G. [Whether] Prosecutor falsely portrayed
[Appellant] in closing arguments?
H. Whether PCRA counsel, [Attorney Markosky and
Attorney Weaver] were ineffective?
Appellant’s brief at 5.5
Proper appellate review of a PCRA court’s dismissal of a PCRA petition
is limited to the examination of “whether the PCRA court’s determination is
supported by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Miller,
102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted). “This Court grants
great deference to the findings of the PCRA court, and we will not disturb those
findings merely because the record could support a contrary holding.”
Commonwealth v. Patterson, 143 A.3d 394, 397 (Pa.Super. 2016) (citation
omitted). In order to be eligible for PCRA relief, a defendant must plead and
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction or sentence
arose from one or more of the errors listed at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2).
____________________________________________
5Appellant’s brief does not contain pagination. For the ease of our discussion,
we have assigned each page a corresponding number.
-6-
J-S35031-22
These issues must be neither previously litigated nor waived. 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 9543(a)(3).
Preliminarily, we observe that a number of Appellant’s claims –
specifically, issues D, E, F, and G – involve allegations of trial court error that
could have been raised on direct appeal. Appellant failed to do so, and thus,
has waived these claims under the PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9544(b)
(stating, “an issue is waived if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to
do so before trial, at trial, … on appeal or in a prior state postconviction
proceeding.”); see also Commonwealth v. Cousar, 154 A.3d 287, 296 (Pa.
2017).
Additionally, Appellant’s challenge to the trial court’s jury instructions –
issue C – has been previously litigated on direct appeal and found to be
without merit by this Court. See Commonwealth v. Marchalk, 224 A.3d
794 (Pa.Super. 2019) (unpublished memorandum at *1-2). Accordingly, this
claim is not cognizable under the PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(3)
(stating, “[t]o be eligible for relief under this subchapter, the petitioner must
plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence ... [t]hat the allegation
of error has not been previously litigated[.]”). A specific issue has been
previously litigated if “it has been raised and decided in a proceeding
collaterally attacking the conviction or sentence.” Id. at § 9544(a)(3).
-7-
J-S35031-22
Appellant’s remaining claims baldly allege, with virtually no citation to
the certified record, that his trial and PCRA counsel rendered ineffective
assistance of counsel. See Appellant’s brief at 6-7, 10 (issues A-B, H).
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the PCRA,
a petitioner must establish the following three factors: “first[,] the underlying
claim has arguable merit; second, that counsel had no reasonable basis for
his action or inaction; and third, that Appellant was prejudiced.”
Commonwealth v. Charleston, 94 A.3d 1012, 1020 (Pa.Super. 2014)
(citation omitted), appeal denied, 104 A.3d 523 (Pa. 2014).
[A] PCRA petitioner will be granted relief only when he
proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his
conviction or sentence resulted from the [i]neffective
assistance of counsel which, in the circumstances of
the particular case, so undermined the
truth-determining process that no reliable
adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken
place.
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294, 311 (Pa. 2014) (internal quotation
marks omitted; some brackets in original), citing 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 9543(a)(2)(ii).
“[C]ounsel is presumed to be effective and the burden of demonstrating
ineffectiveness rests on appellant.” Commonwealth v. Ousley, 21 A.3d
1238, 1242 (Pa.Super. 2011) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 30 A.3d 487(Pa. 2011).
Our Supreme Court has set forth the proper framework for alleging a
layered ineffective assistance of counsel claim in the context of the PCRA:
-8-
J-S35031-22
Succinctly stated, a petitioner must plead in his PCRA
petition that his prior counsel, whose alleged
ineffectiveness is at issue, was ineffective for failing
to raise the claim that the counsel who preceded him
was ineffective in taking or omitting some action. In
addition, a petitioner must present argument, in briefs
or other court memoranda, on the three prongs of the
[ineffectiveness] test as to each relevant layer of
representation. . . . [T]his means that the arguable
merit prong of the [ineffectiveness] test as to the
claim that appellate counsel was ineffective in not
raising trial counsel’s ineffectiveness consists of the
application of the three-prong [ineffectiveness] test to
the underlying claim of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness.
If any one of the prongs as to trial counsel’s
ineffectiveness is not established, then necessarily the
claim of appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness fails. Only
if all three prongs as to the claim of trial counsel’s
ineffectiveness are established, do prongs 2 and 3 of
the [ineffectiveness] test as to the claim of appellate
counsel’s ineffectiveness have relevance, requiring a
determination as to whether appellate counsel had a
reasonable basis for his course of conduct in failing to
raise a meritorious claim of trial counsel’s
ineffectiveness (prong 2) and whether petitioner was
prejudiced by appellate counsel’s course of conduct in
not raising the meritorious claim of trial counsel’s
ineffectiveness (prong 3).
Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 470, 482 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted).
Instantly, our review of Appellant’s pro se brief indicates that he has
failed to properly raise his layered ineffectiveness claims by applying the
three-prong ineffectiveness test to each level of representation. A
determination that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance is a
prerequisite to finding that any subsequent counsel was himself ineffective,
and no such findings were demonstrated in this case. See Commonwealth
v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260, 1270 (Pa.Super. 2010). Notably, the argument
-9-
J-S35031-22
section of Appellant’s brief fails to include a single citation to any caselaw
concerning the three-prong ineffectiveness test or include any meaningful
analysis or discussion thereof.
Accordingly, we find Appellant’s ineffectiveness claims waived. See,
e.g., Commonwealth v. Brown, 161 A.3d 960, 969 (Pa.Super. 2017) (an
assertion of a single-sentence ineffectiveness claim was rendered waived due
to appellant’s failure to properly develop the claim and set forth applicable
case law to advance it in the argument section of his brief), appeal denied,
176 A.3d 850 (Pa. 2017).
In reaching this decision, we note that Appellant’s status as a pro se
litigant does not absolve him from responsibility for compliance with the rules.
Although this Court is willing to liberally construe
materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status
confers no special benefit upon the appellant. To the
contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in
a legal proceeding must . . . assume that his lack of
expertise and legal training will be his undoing.
Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 498 (Pa.Super. 2005) (citation
omitted).
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the December 17, 2021 order of the
PCRA court dismissing Appellant’s PCRA petition.
Order affirmed.
- 10 -
J-S35031-22
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/22/2022
- 11 -