Com. v. Mullarkey, J. ( 2020 )

J-S43022-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMOWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JOHN MULLARKEY
Appellant No. 1898 WDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order entered December 2, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No: CP-02-CR-0013073-2007
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., STABILE, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED DECEMBER 16, 2020
Appellant, John Mullarkey, appeals pro se from the December 2, 2019
order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, denying his
second petition for collateral relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act,
42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Following review, we affirm.
Appellant presents one issue in this appeal:
I. Whether the trial court erred by denying/dismissing
Appellant’s Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition without
ordering evidence be provided to Appellant and without a
hearing?
Appellant’s Brief at 2.
As our Supreme Court recently reiterated:
Our standard of review in a PCRA appeal requires us to determine
whether the PCRA court’s findings of fact are supported by the
record, and whether its conclusions of law are free from legal
error. Commonwealth v. Mason, 634 Pa. 359, 130 A.3d 601,
J-S43022-20
617 (2015). The scope of our review is limited to the findings of
the PCRA court and the evidence of record, which we view in the
light most favorable to the party who prevailed before that court.
Commonwealth v. Hanible, 612 Pa. 183, 30 A.3d 426, 438
(2011). . . . The PCRA court’s factual findings and credibility
determinations, when supported by the record, are binding upon
this Court. Mason, 130 A.3d at 617. However, we review the
PCRA court's legal conclusions de novo. Id.
Commonwealth v. Small, --- A.3d ---, 2020 WL 5833781, at *8 (Pa. October
1, 2020).
The underlying facts are not in dispute. On August 15, 2007, Appellant,
who was then eighteen years old, stabbed his sixteen-year-old “on again-off
again” girlfriend Demi sixteen times. Demi managed to run out of her house,
covered in blood, and told a neighbor that Appellant stabbed her. She
collapsed and, despite the efforts of paramedics, later died.
Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and was sentenced to
life in prison without parole. His direct appeal attempts were unsuccessful, as
were his initial attempts for PCRA and habeas corpus relief.
Appellant filed the instant PCRA petition, his second, on July 6, 2017.
Proceedings were stayed pending disposition of his habeas corpus proceedings
in federal court. In the petition, Appellant claimed that the Investigation
Discovery television network aired a program called Scene of the Crime on
May 7, 2017, that covered his case. He claimed he was previously unaware
-2-
J-S43022-20
of four pieces of evidence featured in the program, including interviews and
video footage.1
On May 13, 2019, after PCRA proceedings resumed, Appellant filed a
“petition for certificate directing appearance of out of state witness to appear
and bring documents.” He sought an order compelling discovery from
Discovery, Inc., of dash cam video in its possession. In its response to the
petition, the Commonwealth contended that Mullarkey failed to plead or prove
exceptional circumstances that would merit discovery in PCRA proceedings.
Further, because the petition was Appellant’s second, he was required to
present a strong prima facie showing that a miscarriage of justice occurred.
The PCRA court denied Appellant’s request for the appearance of an out-
of-state witness. On July 18, 2019, Appellant filed an amended PCRA petition,
asserting entitlement to a new trial because the Commonwealth failed to
disclose that more than one dash cam video existed. He claimed the additional
video might contain exculpatory evidence that was unavailable at trial and
might have changed the outcome if introduced, although he acknowledged
____________________________________________
1 The PCRA court did not discuss the timeliness of Appellant’s petition.
Further, the Commonwealth did not file an answer to the petition and,
therefore, did not question whether Appellant complied with the requirements
of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). However, we concur with the Commonwealth’s
suggestion that Appellant’s petition satisfied the requirements of Section
9545(b)(1)(ii) in effect in 2017 by filing his petition within 60 days of the date
the television show aired. See Commonwealth Brief at 9 n. 2. Therefore, we
shall address the merits of Appellant’s claims.
-3-
J-S43022-20
that any possible change in the outcome could not be ascertained until the
video was produced. The Commonwealth did not file a response to the
amended petition.
On October 17, 2019, the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice of
intention to dismiss Appellant’s petition without a hearing. Noting that
Appellant’s petition was his second PCRA petition, the court recognized
Appellant’s burden of making a prima facie showing “that the proceedings
resulting in his conviction were so unfair that a miscarriage of justice may
have occurred.” Memorandum Opinion, 10/17/19, at 6 (citing
Commonwealth v. Lawson, 549 A.2d 107 (Pa. 1988)). Further, the court
noted the requirements for requesting an evidentiary hearing under
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(d). Specifically, Appellant was required to set forth an
offer to prove the existence of a material dispute of fact that would support
relief if decided in his favor. “At minimum, [Appellant] must identify the
evidence, explain what material facts it would be relevant to and proffer how
such evidence, had it been available, would have changed the outcome of the
trial.” Id. at 7.
The PCRA court determined that Appellant failed to offer an explanation
of what the dash cam evidence would show, any material facts to which it
would be relevant, or how it could possibly have affected the outcome of the
case. “In fact, the best [Appellant] can do is suggest that what is depicted on
this other dash cam video may constitute exculpatory evidence. Id. (citing
-4-
J-S43022-20
Amended PCRA Petition, 7/18/19, at ¶ 36) (emphasis in original). The court
further indicated that it had reviewed the footage used in the documentary
that was “purportedly” from the previously unavailable dash cam video. “It
shows nothing more than the scene as the officer arrives and parks next to a
building, facing away from where the victim and [Appellant] were laying
[sic].”2 The court concluded that Appellant had not “even attempt[ed] to
explain how another video from the dash cam of a police car arriving at the
scene would have assisted in establishing” a defense that Appellant was
unable to form the specific intent to kill because he was suffering from a
mental illness or disturbance that affected his cognitive abilities. Id. at 9. In
light of the overwhelming evidence, including eyewitness testimony, “[a]
second view of the crime scene that might be provided if another dash cam
video exists could not possibly have affected the outcome of this trial.” Id. at
11.
On December 2, 2019, the court issued its order dismissing Appellant’s
petition. This timely appeal followed. The PCRA court did not order the filing
of a Rule 1925(b) statement. PCRA counsel was granted leave to withdraw
and Appellant’s request for appointment of counsel was denied. By order
issued January 10, 2020, the PCRA court indicated that the reasons for
____________________________________________
2 In what appeared to be a suicide attempt, Appellant slashed his own throat
after stabbing his victim and then followed her outside her home. He was also
lying outside when the paramedics arrived and transported him to the
hospital.
-5-
J-S43022-20
dismissal of Appellant’s petition were set forth in its October 17, 2019
Memorandum Opinion and Rule 907 Notice of Intent to Dismiss.
The first prong of Appellant’s issue on appeal challenges the PCRA
court’s denial of his discovery request. In Commonwealth v. Frey, 41 A.3d
605 (Pa. Super. 2012), this Court observed:
In PCRA proceedings, discovery is only permitted upon leave of
court after a showing of exceptional circumstances. 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 9545(d)(2); Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(E)(1). The PCRA and the criminal
rules do not define the term “exceptional circumstances.” Rather,
it is for the trial court, in its discretion, to determine whether a
case is exceptional and discovery is therefore warranted.
Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 900 A.2d 407, 412 (Pa. Super.
2006).
Id. at 611. Further,
[m]ere speculation that Brady[3] materials may exist does not
constitute a showing of exceptional circumstances as required by
this rule. See [Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa.
2000)], supra, (finding appellant’s request to review government
files for evidence of payments to witnesses properly rejected as
fishing expedition where allegation was pure speculation).
Accordingly, Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the PCRA
court abused its discretion in denying his request for discovery.
Dickerson, 900 A.2d at 412.
As noted above, the PCRA court determined that Appellant failed to
explain what the dash cam evidence would show or how it could possibly affect
the outcome of the case. Appellant did not provide any support for his
contention the evidence could be “favorable” to his defense. Based on its
____________________________________________
3 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1965).
-6-
J-S43022-20
review, the PCRA court found Appellant failed to establish the exceptional
circumstances required to permit discovery in a PCRA proceeding.
Memorandum Opinion, 10/17/19, at 8. We find no abuse of discretion in the
PCRA court’s determination that a second dash cam view of the crime scene
could not have affected the outcome of the trial. Therefore, Appellant is not
entitled to relief on the evidentiary prong of his issue.
Appellant next asserts PCRA court error for dismissing his petition
without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. However, it is well established
that “[t]here is no absolute right to an evidentiary hearing on a PCRA petition,
and if the PCRA court can determine from the record that no genuine issues
of material fact exist, then a hearing is not necessary.” Commonwealth v.
McGarry, 172 A.3d 60, 70 (Pa. Super. 2017) (quoting Commonwealth v.
Jones, 942 A.2d 903, 906 (Pa. Super. 2008)). Further, “[w]ith respect to the
PCRA court’s decision to deny a request for an evidentiary hearing . . ., such
a decision is within the discretion of the PCRA court and will not be overturned
absent an abuse of discretion.” Id. (quoting Mason, 130 A.3d at 617). No
material facts exist in the record that necessitate an evidentiary hearing. We
find no abuse of discretion on the part of the PCRA court for declining to hold
an evidentiary hearing.
Because the PCRA court’s findings of fact are supported by the record
and its legal conclusions are free from legal error, we shall affirm the
December 2, 2019 order dismissing Appellant’s second PCRA petition.
-7-
J-S43022-20
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/16/2020
-8-