Com. v. Davis, R.

J-S51027-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
RONALD DAVIS :
:
Appellant :
: No. 1680 EDA 2017
Appeal from the PCRA Order April 28, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division
at No(s): CP-46-CR-0003650-2013
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., NICHOLS, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 26, 2018
Appellant Ronald Davis appeals from the order denying his first timely
petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-
9546, following a hearing. Appellant asserts that trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to introduce evidence of the timeline of events and for failing to
object to the prosecutor’s remarks during closing argument regarding
Appellant’s association with his co-defendant, Justin Johnson. We affirm.
The relevant facts of this matter include the following:
On March 8, 2013, Marshauna Hinton [(Complainant)]
entered her home on Locust Street in Norristown,
Montgomery County, and found two men inside the
residence. She promptly fled and called police.
[Complainant] later identified co-defendant, Justin Johnson,
from a photo line-up, and he was arrested that same day.
Johnson admitted his involvement, and informed police that
he and [Appellant] had committed a string of burglaries in
Norristown in early 2013, including the one at
[Complainant’s] home. [Appellant] was initially charged on
J-S51027-18
March 21, 2013, with the Hinton burglary. However, the
complaint was withdrawn and a revised complaint was filed
on April 15, 2013, charging [Appellant] with numerous
crimes, 68 counts in all, including robbery,[1] burglary,[2]
[receiving stolen property],[3] and conspiracy,[4] for the
2013 Norristown burglaries.
Commonwealth v. Davis, No. 397 EDA 2015 [(filed Dec. 30,
2015),] at 2. By [o]rder of April 30, 2014, the multiple burglaries
were ultimately severed by the [trial c]ourt, and ordered to be
tried separately.
[At a jury trial, held on September 3 and 4, 2014, regarding the
burglary on Locust Street], Justin Johnson testified that he and
[Appellant] entered the home at 1215 Locust Street. Prior to
entering the home, they knocked on the front door and yelled
through the mail slot to determine if anyone was home. Satisfied
the house was empty, the [Appellant] went behind the house, and
gained entry into the home, and opened the front door from the
inside and let Johnson into the home. Both men went to the
second floor of the home to look for valuables. After a few
minutes, at approximately 11:15 a.m., [Complainant] arrived
home, and saw Johnson [and another individual in a mask with a
gun]. Both men fled the home and ran to [Appellant’s] home on
Cherry Street. It took less than five minutes to arrive at Cherry
Street. They sorted the jewelry and discussed meeting at the
Norristown Transportation Center to take the train to Lou’s Pawn
Shop in Upper Darby. They were in the home on Cherry Street
for about five to ten minutes. Johnson was arrested while
[walking] to his mother’s house, a five minute walk from Cherry
Street, to change his clothes. [Appellant traveled to Lou’s Pawn
Shop in Upper Darby, passing several other pawn shops in
Norristown.] At 2:51 p.m., records from Lou’s Pawn Shop . . .
show that [Appellant] sold a ring taken from the Locust Street
burglary.
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii).
2
18 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a)(2).
3
18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(a).
4
18 Pa.C.S. § 903(a)(1).
-2-
J-S51027-18
PCRA Ct. Op., 9/11/17, at 1-2 (some citations omitted).
During closing arguments, Appellant’s counsel conceded that Appellant
had received stolen property, but argued that Appellant had not been involved
in the burglary itself. Moreover, Appellant’s counsel challenged the credibility
of Johnson based on Johnson’s prior convictions and argued that Johnson’s
testimony that Appellant participated in the Locust Street burglary was
inconsistent and unworthy of belief. See N.T. Trial, 9/4/14, at 85-86, 95-98.
The Commonwealth, during its closing argument, stated that Johnson
was a known criminal and someone with whom Appellant associated. Id. at
121-23. The prosecutor also stated that fifteen minutes elapsed between the
burglary and Johnson’s arrest. Id. at 136. In asserting that only fifteen
minutes passed between the burglary and Johnson’s arrest, the
Commonwealth referred to Johnson’s testimony that (1) it took fewer than
five minutes to go from the burglary at 1215 Locust Street to Appellant’s home
at 1007 Chestnut Street, (2) Johnson and Appellant were at Appellant’s home
for approximately five minutes, and (3) Johnson then headed to his mother’s
house to change clothes, which was took another five minutes, but was unable
to change his clothes because he was arrested. Id. at 135-36; see also N.T.
Trial, 9/3/14, at 154-160.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury convicted Appellant of burglary,
criminal conspiracy and receiving stolen property, but acquitted him of
robbery. Appellant was sentenced on January 9, 2015, to 4½ to 9 years of
incarceration. On direct appeal, on December 30, 2015, this Court affirmed
-3-
J-S51027-18
the judgment of sentence and permitted Appellant’s counsel to withdraw
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Appellant filed a timely pro se petition under the PCRA, which the PCRA
court docketed on January 21, 2016. Counsel was appointed, who filed an
amended PCRA petition. Attached to Appellant’s pro se petition was a police
report dated March 27, 2013, which was not introduced into evidence at trial,
but which indicated that police were dispatched to the scene of the burglary
at approximately noon on March 8, 2013 and that Johnson was arrested at
1:13 PM. See Police Report, 3/27/13.
The Commonwealth filed a response, and Appellant filed an addendum.
A hearing on the PCRA petition was held on March 23, 2017. At the hearing,
the timeframe in which Johnson was arrested following the burglary was
expanded and established to be one hour and twenty minutes. See N.T. PCRA
Hr’g, 3/23/17, at 11. By order of April 28, 2017, the PCRA court found that
trial counsel was not ineffective and dismissed Appellant’s PCRA petition.
This timely appeal followed. Appellant and the PCRA court have
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
1. Whether the PCRA [c]ourt erred in finding that trial counsel was
not ineffective where trial counsel failed to introduce evidence
of the timeline of events, which would have bolstered the
defense theory that Appellant purchased [a] stolen item after
the burglary[.]
2. Whether the PCRA [c]ourt erred in finding that trial counsel was
not ineffective where trial counsel failed to object to [the]
prosecutor’s unduly prejudicial remarks regarding Appellant’s
-4-
J-S51027-18
“association/friendship” with his co-defendant[,] who had an
extensive criminal record[,] during closing argument in
violation of Appellant’s due process rights, and the prohibition
against admission of prior bad character evidence[.]
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
In both issues, Appellant contends that the PCRA court erred in
dismissing ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The following principles
govern our review:
Our standard of review of a PCRA court’s denial of a petition for
postconviction relief is well-settled: We must examine whether
the record supports the PCRA court’s determination, and whether
the PCRA court’s determination is free of legal error. The PCRA
court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for
the findings in the certified record.
Commonwealth v. Franklin, 990 A.2d 795, 797 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation
omitted). Additionally,
[i]t is well-established that counsel is presumed to have provided
effective representation unless the PCRA petitioner pleads and
proves all of the following: (1) the underlying legal claim is of
arguable merit; (2) counsel’s action or inaction lacked any
objectively reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client’s
interest; and (3) prejudice, to the effect that there was a
reasonable probability of a different outcome if not for counsel’s
error.
Id. (citation omitted).
In his first issue, Appellant asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to establish an accurate timeline related to Johnson’s arrest, which
would have made it more plausible that Appellant was not involved in the
burglary and instead had purchased a ring afterward from Johnson. Appellant
specifically argues that
-5-
J-S51027-18
[t]rial counsel should have presented evidence that established
there was an hour and twenty minutes that went by between
[Complainant] calling the police, and Justin Johnson being
arrested to support the defense theory that there was time for
Appellant to have received the stolen ring, not that he was a
participant in the burglary. In addition, trial counsel should have
objected to the Commonwealth’s continued assertion during his
closing argument that there was only a fifteen-minute time period.
Appellant’s Brief at 19. Since one hour and twenty minutes elapsed between
Complainant calling the police and Johnson being arrested, Appellant had
more time to have purchased the ring that he sold at the pawnshop. According
to Appellant, this supports his argument that he was not a participant in the
burglary itself. Id.
By way of background to this issue, when asked about the significance
of the longer period of time at the PCRA hearing, trial counsel testified that
[i]n [his] view, based on the evidence as it came into the case, [it
would not] have made a difference because of the testimony of
Justin Johnson and the evidence regarding the pawn shop. [He
did not] think it would have made a difference.
N.T. PCRA Hr’g, 3/23/17, at 64.
The PCRA court denied relief on this claim, concluding:
Further development regarding the specific amount of time that
elapsed between the burglary and Justin Johnson’s arrest would
not have created the probability of a different outcome, thereby
failing to satisfy the prejudice prong. Even fifteen minutes would
have been enough time for Johnson to meet [Appellant] and sell
him the ring. Furthermore, trial counsel did pursue a strategy
wherein he argued that [Appellant] was only guilty of receiving
stolen property.
PCRA Ct. Op., 9/11/17, at 6.
-6-
J-S51027-18
We agree with the PCRA court. Appellant asserts that the fifteen-minute
timeframe made it appear more likely that he was involved in the underlying
burglary. However, either amount of time was sufficient for him to have
received stolen property from Johnson. The jury was presented with the
theory that Appellant had merely received stolen property, which was
plausible under the timeline established at trial.
Moreover, the evidence adduced at trial indicated that Appellant had
participated in the burglary. Appellant’s consciousness of guilt was apparent
in that he chose to bypass several pawn shops in the more immediate area to
travel to Lou’s Pawn Shop in Upper Darby to sell the ring. Additionally,
Johnson knew Appellant would sell the ring at Lou’s Pawn Shop, making it
more likely that they had committed the burglary together. See N.T. Trial,
9/3/14, at 156. Accordingly, Appellant has not demonstrated a reasonable
probability of a different outcome if the hour-and-twenty-minute timeframe
had been clarified at trial. See Franklin, 990 A.2d at 797.
In his second issue, Appellant asserts that trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to object to the prosecutor’s allegedly prejudicial remarks regarding
Appellant’s association with Justin Johnson, who had an extensive criminal
record. Appellant’s Brief at 23. Appellant argues that referring to him as a
friend of Johnson’s was a reference to impermissible bad character evidence
that denied Appellant a fair trial. Id. at 24 (citing Commonwealth v.
Lipscomb, 317 A.2d 205, 207 (Pa. 1975) and Commonwealth v. Scarfo,
611 A.2d 242, 283-84 (Pa. Super. 1992)). Specifically, Appellant argues that
-7-
J-S51027-18
the “prosecutor relied upon the prior criminal history of Mr. Johnson to argue
that this is an ‘associate’ or even ‘friend’ of Appellant as a basis for a finding
of guilt that is impermissible as bad character evidence.” Id. (citing Pa.R.E.
404(a)(1)).
By way of background to this claim, the prosecutor stated the following
during closing argument:
And we’ll get to corroboration which I’m going to suggest to you
there’s more than enough corroboration in this case for each and
every one of you to find Justin Johnson to be a credible witness .
. . And think not just about Justin Johnson as an interested-party
here; but the reality is that there’s an additional interested party
involved in this case, a party who I would suggest to you has not,
just a passing interest, but a vital one, one that would cause that
person to attempt in any way that they could to discredit
otherwise credible evidence against them. [Appellant], do not
forget, though he bears no burden is still an interested party in
this. And also don’t forget every time we talk about the various
prior convictions that Justin Johnson has, don’t forget that Justin
Johnson is at the very least a known associate, if not a friend, of
[Appellant], the kind of person that [Appellant] associates himself
with. At the very least, even though, and we’ll get there, defense
counsel will talk about the ring coming into the possession of
[Appellant]. The ring got there somehow. Even under their theory,
which is not evidence, the ring came to [Appellant] through a
source. And that source, according to their theory that is not
evidence, is Justin Johnson. So even taking at face value, which
ultimately, as I said, is argument and not evidence, every time
you think about those prior convictions that Justin Johnson has,
you think about how that relates to [Appellant] and his
associations.
N.T. Trial, 9/4/14, at 122-24.
A claim of prosecutorial misconduct is evaluated based upon
“whether the defendant was deprived of a fair trial, not deprived
of a perfect one. Thus, a prosecutor’s remarks do not constitute
reversible error unless their unavoidable effect . . . [was] to
-8-
J-S51027-18
prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility
toward the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence
objectively and render a true verdict.”
Commonwealth v. Ragland, 991 A.2d 336, 340 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation
omitted).
When considering claims that a prosecutor has committed misconduct
in his or her comments to the jury, we note that “the prosecutor may fairly
respond to points made in the defense closing. Moreover, prosecutorial
misconduct will not be found where comments were based on the evidence or
proper inferences therefrom or were only oratorical flair.” Commonwealth
v. Judy, 978 A.2d 1015, 1020 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted).
Here, the PCRA court found that the Commonwealth’s comments about
Johnson
constituted a proper response to trial counsel’s attack on the
credibility of Johnson and proper argument regarding the charge
of receiving stolen property. Based on Johnson’s history,
[Appellant] knew or should have known that the ring that came
into his possession was stolen. Therefore, counsel was not
ineffective for failing to object.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the prosecutor’s remarks were
objectionable and improperly implied that [Appellant] himself had
a prior record, he did not suffer actual prejudice. While he was
convicted of burglary, criminal conspiracy and receiving stolen
property, the jury acquitted him of the charge of robbery.
Therefore, it is clear that the prosecutor’s argument did not create
a bias or hostility toward [Appellant] that negated the jury’s ability
to render a fair verdict.
PCRA Ct. Op., 9/11/17, at 10-11.
-9-
J-S51027-18
We agree with the PCRA court. The comments were fair rebuttal to
attacks on Johnson’s credibility, since they show that Johnson was willing to
be completely honest about his background. Additionally, the evidence
presented at trial supported the comments the prosecutor made regarding
Johnson and his history. See Judy, 978 A.2d at 1020. Moreover, the jury
was not unfairly prejudiced against Appellant by the prosecutor’s remarks, as
shown by Appellant’s acquittal for robbery.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/26/2018
- 10 -