Com. v. Vega, F.

J-S04022-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
FELIPE VEGA, JR.,
Appellant No. 293 MDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order entered January 27, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-22-CR-0000340-2007
BEFORE: BOWES, ALLEN, and STRASSBURGER*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 09, 2015
Felipe Vega, Jr., (“Appellant”) appeals from the order denying his
petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42
Pa.C.S.A. sections 9541-46. We affirm.
The pertinent facts are as follows:
A jury found Appellant and his co-defendant/cousin, Carlos
Lopez-Malave, guilty of second degree murder, robbery,
conspiracy to commit robbery, burglary, and conspiracy to
commit burglary in connection with the home invasion,
robbery and fatal shooting of Cung Duong, the owner of a
Harrisburg pool hall and a well[-]known bookie in the
Harrisburg Asian community. Three other co-conspirators
were charged with the murder, and entered guilty pleas.
As part of their plea agreements, they testified against
[Appellant and his co-defendant] at trial. [The testifying
co-conspirators included Ronald Whitstyne, Angel Luis
Rivera-Figueroa, and Quong Luong. A sixth co-
conspirator, Lebron Johnson, did not testify.] The jury was
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S04022-15
informed of the plea agreements and the bargains the co-
conspirators made in exchange for specifically defined
sentences. After his conviction, Appellant was sentenced
to life imprisonment for the murder conviction and
concurrent terms of imprisonment for the remaining
charges. Appellant did not file post-sentence motions.
Commonwealth v. Vega, 981 A.2d 937 (Pa. Super. 2009), unpublished
memorandum at 1-2 (footnote omitted).
Appellant filed a timely appeal to this Court in which he raised the
following claims of trial court error: 1) admission of a photo array, which
included a photograph of him bearing the notation, “Harrisburg Police
Department;” 2) the improper limitation of defense counsel’s cross-
examination of a co-conspirator who testified for the Commonwealth, as well
as disparaging remarks made by the trial court regarding defense counsel’s
prior cross-examination; and 3) allowing the jury to view an x-ray of the
victim, showing a severe facture he received as a result of having been shot
in the leg. See id., unpublished memorandum at 2. Concluding that these
claims were waived or otherwise meritless, on July 29, 2009, we affirmed
Appellant’s judgment of sentence. Id. On March 10, 2010, our Supreme
Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal.
Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition on March 14, 2011, and the
PCRA court appointed counsel. However, Appellant later hired private
counsel (“PCRA counsel”) who replaced court-appointed counsel. Thereafter,
PCRA counsel filed a supplemental PCRA petition, and the Commonwealth
filed an answer to the petitions. Following the grant of several continuances,
-2-
J-S04022-15
the PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing on August 3, 2012. Both the
prosecutor who tried the case for the Commonwealth and Appellant’s trial
counsel testified. At the conclusion of the hearing, the PCRA court directed
the parties to file supporting briefs. By order entered January 27, 2014, the
PCRA court denied Appellant’s petition. This timely appeal followed. Both
Appellant and the PCRA court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following issues:
I. Did the PCRA court err when it dismissed [Appellant’s
PCRA] Petition because the prosecution withheld material
evidence, Ronald Whitstyne’s criminal history, in violation
of Appellant’s state and federal constitutional rights to due
process?
II. Did the PCRA court err when it dismissed [Appellant’s
PCRA] Petition because trial counsel ineffectively prepared
for trial by failing to obtain Ronald Whitstyne’s criminal
history?
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
This Court’s standard of review regarding an order dismissing a
petition under the PCRA is whether the determination of the PCRA court is
supported by the evidence of record and is free of legal error.
Commonwealth v. Halley, 870 A.2d 795, 799 n.2 (Pa. 2005). The PCRA
court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for the
findings in the certified record. Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164,
1166 (Pa. Super. 2001). Moreover, a PCRA court may decline to hold a
hearing on the petition if the PCRA court determines that the petitioner’s
claim is patently frivolous and is without a trace of support in either the
-3-
J-S04022-15
record or from other evidence. Commonwealth v. Jordan, 772 A.2d 1011,
1104 (Pa. Super. 2001).
To be eligible for post-conviction relief, a petitioner must plead and
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction or sentence
resulted from one or more of the enumerated errors or defects in 42
Pa.C.S.A. section 9543(a)(2), and that the issues he raises have not been
previously litigated. Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121, 131 (Pa.
2012). An issue has been "previously litigated" if “the highest appellate
court in which the petitioner could have had review as a matter of right has
ruled on the merits of the issue, or if the issue has been raised and decided
in a proceeding collaterally attacking the conviction or sentence.” Koehler,
36 A.3d at 131-132; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9544(a)(2). If a claim has not been
previously litigated, the petitioner must prove that the issue was not waived.
An issue will be deemed waived under the PCRA “if the petitioner could have
raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, during unitary review, on
appeal, or in a prior state post[-]conviction proceeding.” Id. at 132; 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9544(b).
In his first issue, Appellant contends that he is entitled to post-
conviction relief because the Commonwealth committed a violation of Brady
v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), in that it failed to disclose, prior to trial,
Ronald Whitstyne’s complete criminal history, which included two crimen
falsi convictions.
-4-
J-S04022-15
This Court recently summarized:
In the landmark case of [Brady, supra], the United
States Supreme Court held that the suppression by the
prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon
request violates due process where the evidence is
material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of
the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. The Brady
rule is not limited exclusively to directly exculpatory
evidence. Because the reliability of a witness may
ultimately affect a finding of guilt or innocence, the Brady
mandate also encompasses impeachment evidence. Thus,
the Supreme Court of the United States held that []there
are three components of a true Brady violation: The
evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either
because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that
evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either
willingly or inadvertently; and prejudice must have
ensued.
Commonwealth v. Feese, 79 A.3d 1101, 1106 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations
omitted).
Appellant failed to raise an alleged Brady violation in his direct appeal.
Thus, his claim is waived under the PCRA. Koehler, supra.1 Absent
waiver, our review of the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that
____________________________________________
1
Appellant’s co-defendant did raise a Brady violation as an issue in his
appeal. We agreed with the trial court that Lopez-Malave failed to meet his
burden of proof because he “failed to show that there was a reasonable
probability that the outcome of trial would have been different with the
proffered impeachment evidence,” and that Lopez-Malave “was not
prejudiced because there was other inculpatory evidence presented at trial.”
Commonwealth v. Lopez-Malave, 4 A.3d 695 (Pa. Super. 2010),
unpublished memorandum at 7. As discussed supra, the PCRA court
reached the same conclusion regarding the merits of Appellant’s post-
conviction claim.
-5-
J-S04022-15
Appellant did not meet his burden of proof with regard to his claim. The trial
court explained:
[Appellant] clearly fails to prove the third element of a
Brady violation, which is that he was prejudiced by the
concealment or suppression.
***
The jury in this case heard Ronald Whitstyne testify that
as part of his plea agreement, he agreed to plead guilty to
third degree murder, robbery, and criminal conspiracy to
commit robbery and to testify against the co-defendants in
exchange for a sentence of five to ten years. Furthermore,
the jury was specifically warned during closing instructions
that the testimony of the three accomplices – Whitstyne,
Rivera-Figueroa and Luong – offered against their co-
conspirators should be viewed with disfavor. The jury was
instructed, among other things, that accomplices often
testify falsely in the hopes of obtaining favorable treatment
and that as such, their testimony can be considered to
derive from a corrupt or polluted source. The jury was
thus apprised of both Whitstyne’s dubious character
including that he had been convicted in this incident of
third degree murder, robbery (a crimen falsi crime) and
criminal conspiracy to commit robbery, and that Whitstyne
had a strong motive to testify falsely. It is highly unlikely
under these circumstances that evidence of an additional
crimen falsi crime and corresponding crimen falsi
instruction would have tipped the scales such that the jury
would have discredited Whitstyne’s testimony in its
entirety.
Furthermore, Whitstyne’s testimony was not the only
evidence produced against [Appellant]. Whitstyne’s
testimony was essentially cumulative to that of Rivera-
Figueroa, each offered testimony concerning [Appellant’s]
participation in the home invasion, robbery and shooting
that was identical to the other’s in all substantive aspects.
Quong Luong’s testimony further supported each of their
versions wherein he identified in detail [Appellant’s]
lengthy interest in robbing Cung Duong including casing
the victim’s property, obtaining specific information as to
-6-
J-S04022-15
Duong’s habits and purchasing walkie talkies, one of which
was retrieved from the crime scene. Other evidence
clearly implicated [Appellant’s] involvement in the crimes,
independent of Whitstyne’s testimony, including that
[Appellant] drove the wounded Rivera-Figueroa in the
black SUV to the hospital within minutes of the shootings,
as revealed on surveillance tapes, and that a phone
number [Appellant] was known to use was in constant
contact with numerous other telephone numbers used by
the other perpetrators of the crimes. In light of this
additional evidence, [Appellant] did not meet his burden of
showing that he was prejudiced by the failure of the
Commonwealth to provide the 2003 crimen falsi evidence.
PCRA Court Opinion, 1/27/14, at 11-13 (citation and footnotes omitted).2
Our review of the record and pertinent case law involving alleged
Brady violations supports the PCRA court’s conclusions. Thus, even if not
waived under the PCRA, Appellant’s first issue would not entitle him to relief.
In his remaining issue, Appellant asserts that trial counsel was
ineffective because he “failed to search for, obtain, and use Whitstyne’s
[crimen falsi] convictions as impeachment evidence.” Appellant’s Brief at 9.
According to Appellant: “[Trial counsel] testified at Appellant’s PCRA hearing
that he could have used those convictions as impeachment evidence and the
evidence absolutely may have changed the outcome of the trial.” Id.
____________________________________________
2
Although within his brief Appellant also refers to a 2002 retail theft
conviction, the PCRA court found as fact that this record was provided to
Appellant’s trial counsel. PCRA Court Opinion, 1/27/14, at 8. Additionally,
the PCRA court concluded that the language it provided to the jury regarding
accomplice testimony (corrupt source) “is considerably stronger regarding
the potential of a witness-accomplice to be untruthful than the language in a
crimen falsi instruction, if one had been provided.” Id. at 12, n.8.
-7-
J-S04022-15
To obtain relief under the PCRA premised on a claim that counsel was
ineffective, a petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence
that counsel's ineffectiveness so undermined the truth-determining process
that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, 532 (Pa. 2009). “Generally,
counsel’s performance is presumed to be constitutionally adequate, and
counsel will only be deemed ineffective upon a sufficient showing by the
petitioner.” Id. This requires the petitioner to demonstrate that: (1) the
underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) counsel had no reasonable
strategic basis for his or her action or inaction; and (3) petitioner was
prejudiced by counsel's act or omission. Id. at 533. A finding of "prejudice"
requires the petitioner to show "that there is a reasonable probability that,
but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would
have been different." Id. Counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing
to pursue a meritless claim. Commonwealth v. Loner, 836 A.2d 125, 132
(Pa. Super. 2003).
In assessing a claim of ineffectiveness, when it is clear that appellant
has failed to meet the prejudice prong, the court may dispose of the claim
on that basis alone, without a determination of whether the first two prongs
have been met. Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 661 A.2d 352, 357 (Pa.
1995). Counsel will not be deemed ineffective if any reasonable basis exists
for counsel's actions. Commonwealth v. Douglas, 645 A.2d 226, 231 (Pa.
-8-
J-S04022-15
1994). Even if counsel had no reasonable basis for the course of conduct
pursued, however, an appellant is not entitled to relief if he fails to
demonstrate the requisite prejudice which is necessary under Pennsylvania's
ineffectiveness standard. Douglas, 645 A.2d at 232. Counsel cannot be
deemed ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless claim. Commonwealth
v. Loner, 836 A.2d 125, 132 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc), appeal denied,
852 A.2d 311 (Pa. 2004).
Moreover, trial counsel's strategic decisions cannot be the subject of a
finding of ineffectiveness if the decision to follow a particular course of action
was reasonably based, and was not the result of sloth or ignorance of
available alternatives. Commonwealth v. Collins, 545 A.2d 882, 886 (Pa.
1988) (cited with approval by Commonwealth v. Hall, 701 A.2d 190, 204
(Pa. 1997)). Counsel's approach must be "so unreasonable that no
competent lawyer would have chosen it." Commonwealth v. Ervin, 766
A.2d 859, 862-63 (Pa. Super. 2000) (quoting Commonwealth v. Miller,
431 A.2d 233, 234 (Pa. 1981). Our Supreme Court has defined
“reasonableness” as follows:
Our inquiry ceases and counsel’s assistance is deemed
constitutionally effective once we are able to conclude that
the particular course chosen by counsel had some
reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client’s
interests. The test is not whether other alternatives were
more reasonable, employing a hindsight evaluation of the
record. Although weigh the alternatives we must, the
balance tips in favor of a finding of effective assistance as
soon as it is determined that trial counsel’s decision had any
reasonable basis.
-9-
J-S04022-15
Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973, 975 (Pa. 1987) (quoting Com.
ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 235 A.2d 349, 352-53 (Pa. 1967)). See
also Commonwealth v. Clark, 626 A.2d 154, 157 (Pa. 1993) (explaining
that a defendant asserting ineffectiveness based upon trial strategy must
demonstrate that the “alternatives not chosen offered a potential for success
substantially greater than the tactics utilized”). A defendant is not entitled
to appellate relief simply because a chosen strategy is unsuccessful.
Commonwealth v. Buksa, 655 A.2d 576, 582 (Pa. Super. 1995).
The PCRA court found that trial counsel provided effective assistance
to Appellant and reasoned:
With regard to [trial] counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness
for failing to present the 2002 retail theft conviction,
counsel agreed that he had been apprised prior to trial of
that conviction in documents supplied to him by the
Commonwealth. He testified that this evidence was
admissible as crimen falsi and could have been used to
impeach Whitstyne but that he chose not to use it. [Trial
counsel’s] failure to so impeach Whitstyne is thus a claim
of arguable merit under the PCRA.
This court finds, however, under the second prong of
the ineffective assistance of counsel test, that trial
counsel’s decision not to impeach Whitstyne on the
summary retail theft was based upon a reasonable trial
strategy. [Trial counsel] explained that he chose not to
offer it as impeachment because he did not think the retail
theft conviction “would make that much of a difference”
since it was a summary violation and because he believed
he had more powerful impeachment evidence.
Specifically, [trial counsel] believed there was significant
impeachment evidence based upon Whitstyne’s role as a
co-conspirator who agreed to testify for the
Commonwealth in return for a lenient sentence and that
- 10 -
J-S04022-15
this impeachment evidence was in fact conveyed to the
jury. Indeed, Whitstyne testified at trial that under his
plea deal he would be getting a “large break” and avoiding
a “murder rap.” As noted above, [the trial court]
instructed the jury it could disfavor Whitstyne’s testimony
as it came from a corrupt or polluted source. Since these
reasons reveal reasonable trial strategy, [Appellant] is not
entitled to PCRA relief under this claim.
Furthermore, even assuming this was not a reasonable
strategy, [Appellant’s] claim fails because [trial] counsel’s
failure to present the 2002 retail theft conviction as
impeachment evidence caused him no prejudice. In order
to show prejudice on an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim, [Appellant] must prove that but for counsel’s
omission there is a reasonable probability that the
outcome of the proceedings would have been different.
This is the same prejudice standard [Appellant] failed to
meet in attempting to prove a Brady violation. As
discussed above in detail, the omission of relatively minor
impeachment evidence against Commonwealth witness
Whitstyne could not have altered the verdict in this case
whereby Whitstyne’s testimony was cumulative and
otherwise corroborated by other witnesses, where
evidence independent of Whitstyne’s testimony implicated
[Appellant’s] involvement in the crimes, and where
powerful impeachment evidence was offered against
Whitstyne at trial concerning his role as an accomplice-
turned-state’s-witness.
[Appellant] also argues that trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to obtain the 2003 unsworn falsification
conviction information and present it to impeach
Whitstyne. This claim lacks arguable merit since trial
counsel made reasonable efforts to obtain all of
Whitstyne’s prior criminal history record. [Trial counsel]
specifically requested Whitstyne’s prior criminal history
record from the Commonwealth and duly received the
NCIC report indicating that history. The credible evidence
presented, which was offered both by the prosecutor and
[trial counsel], was that the NCIC reports were routinely
employed by attorneys within the criminal justice system
as the best and most inclusive source of prior criminal
records. [Trial counsel] thus reasonably relied upon the
criminal records provided him by the Commonwealth and
- 11 -
J-S04022-15
was not further obligated to make any additional searches,
including within the CPCMS.
Again, even assuming [trial counsel] should have
discovered the 2003 unsworn falsification conviction
evidence and further assuming counsel could offer no
reasonable basis for failing to impeach Whitstyne upon it,
[Appellant] cannot satisfy the prejudice prong of his
ineffectiveness claim. [The PCRA court] addressed and
dismissed this exact prejudice claim under the Brady
analysis and adopt that reasoning here.
PCRA Court Opinion, 1/27/14, at 14-15 (citations omitted).
Again, our review of the record supports the PCRA court’s conclusions.
Both Appellant’s alleged Brady violation and ineffectiveness claim fail
because, given the other evidence presented by the Commonwealth at trial,
Appellant cannot establish prejudice. Additionally, we note that when, as
here, the trial court’s credibility determinations are supported by the record,
they cannot be disturbed on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Battle, 883
A.2d 641, 648 (Pa. Super. 2005) (explaining that credibility determinations
are solely within the province of the PCRA court). Thus, because Appellant
cannot establish the requisite prejudice, his claim of trial counsel’s
ineffectiveness fails. Travaglia, supra.
For the above reasons, we affirm the PCRA court’s order denying
Appellant’s PCRA petition.
PCRA Order affirmed.
- 12 -
J-S04022-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/9/2015
- 13 -