Com. v. Rouse, M. ( 2023 )

J-S13020-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
:
MARTIN ROUSE :
:
Appellant :
: No. 1392 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 12, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No: CP-51-CR-0012569-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
:
MARTIN ROUSE :
:
Appellant :
: No. 1393 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 12, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No: CP-51-CR-0012570-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
:
MARTIN ROUSE :
:
Appellant :
: No. 1394 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 12, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No: CP-51-CR-0012571-2015
J-S13020-23
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
:
MARTIN ROUSE :
:
Appellant :
No. 1395 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 12, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No: CP-51-CR-0012572-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
:
MARTIN ROUSE :
:
Appellant :
: No. 1396 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 12, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No: CP-51-CR-0012573-2015
BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED MAY 12, 2023
Martin Rouse (Appellant) appeals from the order dismissing his petition
filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. We
affirm.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
-2-
J-S13020-23
CASE HISTORY
Between November 2009 and March 2013, Appellant and two co-
conspirators, Curtis Smith (Smith) and Dennis Holloman (Holloman),
committed a series of armed robberies and burglaries in Philadelphia.
On May 23, 2014, Philadelphia police arrested Appellant and
charged him with numerous offenses at docket numbers CP-51-
CR-0012569-2015 (Docket 12569), CP-51-CR-0012570-2015
(Docket 12570), CP-51-CR-0012571-2015 (Docket 12571), CP-
51-CR-0012572-2015 (Docket 12572), and CP-51-CR-0012573-
2015 (Docket 12573). On December 11, 2017, the trial court
granted the Commonwealth’s motion to consolidate Appellant’s
cases.
The charges against Appellant and Holloman proceeded to a week
and a half-long joint jury trial commencing March 5, 2018. Smith
testified as a Commonwealth witness, but denied remembering
anything about the statement he gave police or his guilty pleas.
Holloman testified in his defense, disavowing the statements he
gave to police because, he maintained, the statements were made
under duress and the police detectives’ coercion. Appellant did
not testify, but presented one exhibit. On March 14, 2018, the
jury found Appellant guilty of numerous offenses.
Commonwealth v. Rouse, 237 A.3d 493 (Pa. Super. May 28, 2020)
(unpublished memorandum at *1) (footnotes omitted).
The jury convicted Appellant of three counts of theft by unlawful taking
(Dockets 12570, 12572, 12573); two counts of robbery (Dockets 12569,
12571), conspiracy to commit robbery (Dockets 12572, 12573), receiving
stolen property (Dockets 12569, 12571), and conspiracy to commit receiving
stolen property (Dockets 12569, 12571); and one count of burglary (Docket
12570), conspiracy to commit burglary (Docket 12570), and firearms not to
be carried without a license (Docket 12573).
-3-
J-S13020-23
Appellant timely appealed, and this Court affirmed his convictions.
However, we remanded for resentencing because the probationary sentences
for theft by unlawful taking should have merged with the robbery sentences.
Id. at 6-7.
On February 22, 2021, the trial court resentenced Appellant to an
aggregate 8 — 16 years of incarceration. Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition
on March 1, 2021. Counsel entered his appearance for Appellant and filed an
amended petition on October 13, 2021. The Commonwealth filed a motion to
dismiss the petition without a hearing. The PCRA court, after “reviewing the
petitions, the Commonwealth’s motion, and all relevant matters of record …
determined that Appellant’s claims were meritless, did not raise any issue of
material fact, and did not warrant an evidentiary hearing.” PCRA Court
Opinion, 8/1/22, at 5. On April 7, 2022, the PCRA court issued notice of intent
to dismiss the petition pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. The PCRA court
dismissed the petition on May 12, 2022. Appellant timely filed notices of
appeal at each docket. This Court consolidated the cases sua sponte.
ISSUES
Appellant timely filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. He
presents the following issues for review:
I. Whether the Court erred in denying the Appellant’s PCRA
petition without an evidentiary hearing on the issues raised in the
Amended PCRA petition?
II. Whether Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion
to reconsider sentence?
-4-
J-S13020-23
III. Whether Appellant is entitled to a new trial based on newly
discovered evidence?
IV. Whether Appellant’s conviction should be reversed due to a
change in the law regarding hearsay being admitted at the
preliminary hearing?
V. Whether Appellant’s conviction should be reversed due to a
change in the law regarding Appellant's Rule 600 motion?
Appellant’s Brief at 8.
In his first issue, Appellant argues the PCRA court erroneously dismissed
his petition without conducting a hearing. Appellant’s Brief at 17-19.
Appellant claims he was entitled to a hearing to prove facts which “most
certainly, if proven true, would entitle the Appellant to relief.” Id. at 17.
Notably, Appellant does not identify the facts or develop this claim beyond his
conclusory statement. See id. at 17-19.
In his second issue, Appellant argues his trial counsel “was ineffective
for failing to [file] a post sentencing motion to reconsider sentence.” Id. at
20. Appellant claims the error caused the Superior Court to find waiver, and
“deprived Appellant of arguing the harsh sentence he received.” Id. at 17.
In his third issue, Appellant argues he is entitled to relief due to
“evidence regarding misconduct of police officers ….” Id. Appellant states
that his current counsel “received a Notice from the District Attorney’s Office
disclosing that two police officers who were originally involved in Appellant’s
investigation had been identified as officers who may have engaged in
misconduct.” Id. at 22 (emphasis added). Appellant contends: “Multiple
-5-
J-S13020-23
police officers and detectives gave testimony inconsistent with prior records
and other witness’ testimony. Therefore, the fact that there were officers
involved in Appellant’s investigation who have officially been punished for
making false statements, disclosing classified information, and threatening
violence on people of color, is crucial information to Appellant's defense.” Id.
at 23.
In his fourth and fifth issues, Appellant asserts he is entitled to relief
because of changes in the law regarding 1) hearsay evidence admitted at
preliminary hearings; and 2) Rule 600 motions. Appellant does not address
retroactivity. Regarding hearsay, Appellant cites Commonwealth v.
McClelland, 233 A.3d 717 (Pa. 2020) (holding hearsay evidence alone is not
sufficient to establish a prima facie case at a preliminary hearing). However,
Appellant fails to expand on his claim that McClelland “conflicts with the
assessment made by the court at the Preliminary Hearing” in 2015. Id. at
25. As to Rule 600, Appellant relies on Commonwealth v. Harth, 252 A.3d
600 (Pa. 2021) (holding trial court may invoke “judicial delay” to deny a
defendant’s Rule 600 motion only after the Commonwealth has demonstrated
it complied with due diligence requirements throughout the case). Although
Appellant recites case law, id. at 25-27, his argument is based on his general
assertion that “the Commonwealth did not exercise due diligence.” Id. at 28.
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Commonwealth counters that
the PCRA court properly dismissed Appellant’s petition given the “various
-6-
J-S13020-23
undeveloped allegations regarding ineffective assistance of trial counsel, after-
discovered evidence, speedy trial, and hearsay at the preliminary hearing.”
Commonwealth Brief at 5 (stating Appellant’s “claims are meritless for the
reasons explained in the PCRA court’s opinion.”).
APPELLATE REVIEW
We review the denial of PCRA relief “to determine whether the ruling of
the PCRA court is supported by the record and free of legal error.”
Commonwealth v. Wharton, 263 A.3d 561, 567 (Pa. 2021) (citation
omitted). We have explained:
There 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. To obtain reversal of a PCRA court’s decision to
dismiss a petition without a hearing, an appellant must show that
he raised a genuine issue of fact which, if resolved in his favor,
would have entitled him to relief, or that that court otherwise
abused its discretion in denying a hearing.
Commonwealth v. Maddrey, 205 A.3d 323, 328 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citations
and quotation marks omitted).
Furthermore, to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel, a defendant must show, by a preponderance of the
evidence, ineffective 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. The burden is on the defendant
to prove all three of the following prongs: (1) the underlying claim
is of arguable merit; (2) that counsel had no reasonable strategic
basis for his or her action or inaction; and (3) but for the errors
and omissions of counsel, there is a reasonable probability that
the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.
***
-7-
J-S13020-23
Boilerplate allegations and bald assertions of no reasonable basis
and/or ensuing prejudice cannot satisfy a petitioner’s burden to
prove that counsel was ineffective.
Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1043-44 (Pa. Super. 2019)
(citations omitted). It is well-settled that counsel cannot be deemed
ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim. Commonwealth v.
Poplawski, 852 A.2d 323, 327 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted).
Instantly, the record and law support the PCRA court’s dismissal of
Appellant’s petition.
PCRA COURT OPINION
Like the Commonwealth, we conclude the PCRA court “aptly explains in
its thorough opinion” why Appellant’s issues do not merit relief.
Commonwealth Brief at 5. The Honorable Timika R. Lane, who sat as both
the trial court and PCRA court in this case, observed that “the facts of this
case are troubling.” PCRA Court Opinion, 8/1/22, at 9. Judge Lane capably
addressed Appellant’s issues before concluding that the record and law reveal
“no harmful, prejudicial, or reversible errors[.]” Id. at 17. Having also
reviewed the record and law, we likewise conclude that the PCRA court opinion
properly disposes of Appellant’s issues. Therefore, we adopt the PCRA court’s
August 1, 2022 opinion in affirming the denial of post-conviction relief.
Order affirmed.
-8-
J-S13020-23
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/12/2023
-9-
Circulated 05/01/2023 01:43 PM
0060_Opinion