Com. v. Grier, T.

J-S01008-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
THEODORE STEVE GRIER, a/k/a :
STEVEN GRIER,
:
Appellant : No. 121 WDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order entered on January 14, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Criminal Division, No. CP-02-CR-0007431-2004
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 5, 2015
Theodore Steve Grier, aka Steven Grier (“Grier”) appeals from the
Order denying his Petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act
(“PCRA”).1 We affirm.
The PCRA court set forth the relevant factual and procedural history in
its Opinion, which we incorporate herein by reference. See PCRA Court
Opinion, 9/22/14, at 1-3 (unnumbered).
On appeal, Grier raises the following issue for our review: “Whether
[Grier] was entitled to a new trial based upon the after-discovered evidence
of Taili Thompson [(“Thompson”),] who would testify that all drugs found at
the bar belonged to [] Thompson and not [Grier], [Grier] had no drugs on
1
42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S01008-15
him, and [Grier] did not assault any officers?” Brief for Appellant at 3
(capitalization omitted).
Grier points out that he presented Thompson as a witness at trial, but
that Thompson was deemed “unavailable” because he invoked his privilege
against self-incrimination. Id. at 12 Grier asserts that Thompson
reasserted his willingness to testify on Grier’s behalf in an Affidavit dated
February 6, 2013, but could not recall if he ever communicated to Grier a
willingness to testify prior to executing the Affidavit. Id. Accordingly, Grier
claims, he has complied with the PCRA timeliness requirements. Id. at 12-
13. Grier points out that, at the evidentiary hearing conducted by the PCRA
court, Thompson testified that Grier did not assault any officer, did not
possess any drugs, and the drugs found at the bar belonged to Thompson.
Id. at 13-14. Grier asserts that, when he saw police entering the bar,
Thompson dropped the drugs on the floor, near Grier. Id. at 14. Grier
contends that Thompson’s testimony constitutes exculpatory evidence
which, if believed by the fact finder, would have resulted in a different
verdict. Id. at 16-18.
The PCRA court set forth the relevant law, addressed Grier’s claim, and
concluded that it lacks merit for the reason that Grier could have raised the
issue previously. See PCRA Court Opinion, 9/22/14, at 3-5 (unnumbered).
We agree with the sound reasoning of the PCRA court, and affirm on this
basis. See id.
-2-
J-S01008-15
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/5/2015
-3-
Circulated 01/22/2015 04:15 PM
Circulated 01/22/2015 04:15 PM
Circulated 01/22/2015 04:15 PM
Circulated 01/22/2015 04:15 PM
Circulated 01/22/2015 04:15 PM