Com. v. Manley, L.

J-S77013-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
LEVON MANLEY
Appellant No. 3030 EDA 2013
Appeal from the PCRA Order October 3, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0501841-2006
BEFORE: STABILE, JENKINS, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 09, 2015
Levon Manley appeals pro se from an order dismissing his first petition
under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. We
affirm.
On February 3, 2006, Appellant assaulted Taaqi Brown in the
Germantown neighborhood of Philadelphia. Appellant fired six shots at
Brown with a handgun, hitting Brown five times and permanently disabling
him. PCRA Court Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 4/8/14, at 2-3. Appellant later told
a cellmate he attacked Brown in retaliation for the killing of Appellant’s
friend, “Spinach.” Id. At trial, Appellant claimed an alibi, which the jury
rejected, convicting Appellant of attempted murder, aggravated assault, and
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S77013-14
related offenses. Appellant was later sentenced to an aggregate of 18 to 36
years in prison. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence in a published
opinion, finding Appellant’s issues waived or meritless. Commonwealth v.
Manley, 985 A.2d 256 (Pa. Super. 2009), appeal denied, 996 A.2d 491 (Pa.
2010).
Appellant timely filed a PCRA petition pro se. The PCRA court
appointed counsel, who filed a Turner/Finley1 no-merit letter. The PCRA
court granted counsel’s petition to withdraw and dismissed Appellant’s
petition without a hearing, after providing proper notice under
Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Appellant appealed pro se.
Appellant presents three issues for our review:
1. Did not the trial Court Defence [sic] Attorney and Appellate
Process deny the defendant Equal Protection, Due Process,
and Fundamental Fairness due to the nature of charges by
ignoring, confusing, and misstating the issue of Counsel’s
ineffectiveness by not investigating defendant’s alibi
witnesses and the identification and witnesses against
defendant?
2. Was not all previous lawyers in this matter ineffective for not
seeking a mental evaluation of [Appellant]?
3. Was PCRA Counsel ineffective for not investigating the source
and information given to him by the defendant concerning the
Complainant?
____________________________________________
1
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
-2-
J-S77013-14
Appellant’s Brief at 3.2
We review a court’s order denying post-conviction relief to “determine
whether [its] determination . . . is supported by the evidence of record and
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. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185, 191-92 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(internal quotations and citations omitted). Our scope of review is limited to
the PCRA court’s findings and the evidence of record viewed in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party. Commonwealth v. Weatherill, 24 A.3d
435, 438 (Pa. Super. 2011).
Appellant raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
To plead and prove ineffective assistance of counsel a petitioner
must establish: (1) that the underlying issue has arguable merit;
(2) counsel’s actions lacked an objective reasonable basis; and
(3) actual prejudice resulted from counsel’s act or failure to act.
Where the petitioner fails to meet any aspect of this test, his
claim fails.
Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16, 30 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc)
(internal quotation and quotation marks omitted).
We find Appellant’s first issue meritless, as PCRA counsel’s
Turner/Finley letter demonstrates. PCRA counsel interviewed trial counsel,
____________________________________________
2
Our review of Appellant’s issues is frustrated by the deficiencies in his
brief, which fails to conform to numerous requirements of the Rules of
Appellate Procedure. Nevertheless, to the extent we can, we will review the
issues raised.
-3-
J-S77013-14
who subpoenaed three alibi witnesses for trial: Ikea Scott, Rashaad
McIntyre, and Issa Williams. Turner/Finley Letter, 7/9/13, at 8-9. Scott
refused to honor the subpoena because she did not want to disclose a prior
forgery conviction. Id. Trial counsel did not call McIntyre because she
considered his testimony potentially damaging to the defense. Id. Williams
actually testified at trial. See Manley, 985 A.2d at 260. An ineffectiveness
claim fails where there is a reasonable basis for counsel’s actions, which
applies to Scott and McIntyre. Appellant does not explain how trial counsel
could be deemed ineffective regarding Williams, whose testimony the jury
heard and rejected.
In his second issue, Appellant claims ineffectiveness of all prior counsel
for failing to seek a mental health evaluation. Appellant did not raise this
issue before the PCRA court, and a litigant cannot raise issues for the first
time on appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); Commonwealth v. Paddy, 15 A.3d 431,
466 n.21 (Pa. 2011) (“We cannot consider issues not raised in the PCRA
court.”). Therefore, we cannot review this issue.
In his final issue, Appellant raises the ineffectiveness of PCRA counsel
for allegedly not properly investigating claims relating to trial counsel’s
ineffectiveness. Appellant also raises this issue for the first time on appeal.
We cannot address this issue, as this Court recently clarified that claims “of
PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness may not be raised for the first time on
appeal.” Henkel, 90 A.3d at 20.
-4-
J-S77013-14
In sum, Appellant fails to raise any reversible error committed by the
PCRA court.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/9/2015
-5-