Com. v. Teague, M.

J-S37044-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MARCUS TEAGUE :
:
Appellant : No. 2318 EDA 2021
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 8, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0003291-2014
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MARCUS TEAGUE :
:
Appellant : No. 2319 EDA 2021
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 8, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0002400-2014
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MARCUS TEAGUE :
:
Appellant : No. 2320 EDA 2021
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 8, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0002401-2014
J-S37044-22
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MARCUS TEAGUE :
:
Appellant : No. 2321 EDA 2021
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 8, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0002405-2014
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MARCUS TEAGUE :
:
Appellant : No. 2322 EDA 2021
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 8, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0002406-2014
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MARCUS TEAGUE :
:
Appellant : No. 2323 EDA 2021
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 8, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0002408-2014
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
-2-
J-S37044-22
:
:
MARCUS TEAGUE :
:
Appellant : No. 2324 EDA 2021
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 8, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0002410-2014
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MARCUS TEAGUE :
:
Appellant : No. 2325 EDA 2021
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 8, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0002411-2014
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MARCUS TEAGUE :
:
Appellant : No. 209 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 3, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0002409-2014
BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and OLSON, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED DECEMBER 16, 2022
-3-
J-S37044-22
Appellant, Marcus Teague, appeals from the order entered on January
3, 2022, dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act
(PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
The PCRA court set forth the facts and procedural history of this case as
follows:
Between October and November 2013, Appellant [] committed a
series of robberies in Philadelphia. He held several of his victims
at gunpoint, and knocked one victim to the ground, causing that
victim to hit his head. All victims positively identified [] Appellant.
As a result of these incidents, Appellant was arrested and charged
with [10] counts of robbery and related offenses. On December
2, 2014, Appellant entered into a negotiated plea before [the trial]
court to [10] counts of robbery, five counts of [persons not to
possess a firearm], five counts of carrying a firearm without a
license, and six counts of possession of an instrument of crime.
On February 18, 2015[, the trial court] sentenced Appellant to an
aggregate term of [20] to [40] years of [imprisonment], followed
by seven years of probation.
Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence, which
[the trial] court denied. No direct appeal followed, and on
February 12, 2016, Appellant filed a petition pursuant to the
[PCRA] in which he sought to have his appellate rights reinstated
nunc pro tunc. [The trial] court granted Appellant’s petition on
September 18, 2017, and Appellant then filed a notice of appeal
to the Superior Court. The Superior Court affirmed [the trial]
court’s sentence on February 19, 2019. Appellant then filed a
petition for allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition on
July 30, 2019. On October 26, 2020, Appellant, through counsel,
filed the instant PCRA petition for all docket[ numbers as
captioned above, except one.] On June 8, 2021, Appellant filed
an identical [PCRA] petition [at the remaining docket number].
[The PCRA] court denied Appellant’s October 2020 petition on
November 8, 2021, and denied his June 2021 petition on January
3, 2022. Appellant filed timely notices of appeal to the Superior
-4-
J-S37044-22
Court on November 12, 2021 and January 6, 2022.[1 The PCRA]
court issued orders pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) requiring
Appellant to file a concise statement of [errors] complained of on
appeal. Appellant filed timely concise statements on December
19, 2021 and February 14, 2022. [The PCRA court filed an opinion
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on February 2, 2022.]
PCRA Court Opinion, 2/22/22, at 1-2 (superfluous capitalization omitted).
On appeal, Appellant presents the following issues for our review:
1. Did the [PCRA] court err and abuse its discretion by dismissing
Appellant’s petition and denying an evidentiary hearing as
Appellant was promised by previous counsel to be sentenced
concurrently rather than consecutively?
2. Did the [PCRA] court err and abuse its discretion by dismissing
Appellant’s petition and denying an evidentiary hearing as
Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel as there
was a failure to provide the [trial] court with mitigation at
sentencing?
3. Did the [PCRA] court err and abuse its discretion by dismissing
Appellant’s petition and denying an evidentiary hearing
[because] Appellant claims that eit[h]er the trial court was not
in possession of the [presentence investigation]/mental health
report or[,] in the alternative, [Appellant’s] previous attorneys
were ineffective for failing to reference it?
Appellant’s Brief at 8 (complete capitalization and suggested answers
omitted).
____________________________________________
1 We note that Appellant filed multiple notices of appeal, one for each docket
number. Each notice of appeal lists all eight of the captioned docket numbers
but denote each individual notice of appeal with a check mark next to each
separate docket number. As such, Appellant has complied with our Supreme
Court’s pronouncements in Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa.
2018) and this Court’s en banc decision in Commonwealth v. Johnson, 236
A.3d 1141 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc). By per curiam order entered on
February 22, 2022, we consolidated the appeals sua sponte.
-5-
J-S37044-22
All of Appellant’s appellate PCRA issues implicate the effectiveness of
trial counsel. We employ the following standards:
We must determine whether the findings of the PCRA court are
supported by the record and whether the court's legal conclusions
are free from error. The findings of the PCRA court and the
evidence of record are viewed in a light most favorable to the
prevailing party.
The PCRA court's credibility determinations, when supported by
the record, are binding; however, this [C]ourt applies a de novo
standard of review to the PCRA court's legal conclusions. We must
keep in mind that the petitioner has the burden of persuading this
Court that the PCRA court erred and that such error requires relief.
Finally, this Court may affirm a valid judgment or order for any
reason appearing of record.
Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 205 A.3d 274, 286 (Pa. 2019) (citations
omitted).
Moreover,
[c]ounsel is presumed to be effective, and the petitioner bears the
burden of proving that counsel's assistance was ineffective by a
preponderance of the evidence.
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the
petitioner must plead and prove the following three elements: (1)
the underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) counsel had no
reasonable basis for his or her action or inaction; and (3)
petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel's action or
inaction. To establish prejudice, the petitioner must show that
there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the
proceedings would have been different but for counsel's action or
inaction. Because a petitioner's failure to satisfy any of the above-
mentioned elements is dispositive of the entire claim, a court need
not analyze the elements in any particular order. Failure to satisfy
one element is dipositive.
Commonwealth v. Hairston, 249 A.3d 1046, 1061–1062 (Pa. 2021)
(internal citations omitted).
-6-
J-S37044-22
We have further explained:
A claim has arguable merit where the factual averments, if
accurate, could establish [grounds] for relief. See
Commonwealth v. Jones, 876 A.2d 380, 385 (Pa. 2005) (“if a
petitioner raises allegations, which, even if accepted as true, do
not establish the underlying claim ..., he or she will have failed to
establish the arguable merit prong related to the claim”). Whether
the facts rise to the level of arguable merit is a legal
determination.
Commonwealth v. Stewart, 84 A.3d 701, 707 (Pa. Super. 2013).
Here, the PCRA court determined that there was no merit to Appellant’s
three PCRA claims. For the reasons that follow, we agree. First, the PCRA
court rejected Appellant’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for
erroneously advising him that he would receive a specific sentence for
pleading guilty. PCRA Court Opinion, 2/22/22, at 6. Appellant signed a
written guilty plea colloquy, which he confirmed orally in open court, that he
was entering into an open plea agreement rather than a negotiated sentence.
See Commonwealth v. Vega, 850 A.2d 1277, 1280 (Pa. Super. 2004) (An
“open” plea agreement is one in which there is no negotiated sentence and
gives the trial court discretion to impose an individualized sentence.) Next,
on December 2, 2014, the trial court accepted Appellant’s open plea, ordered
the preparation of pre-sentence investigation (PSI) and mental health reports,
and scheduled sentencing for February 18, 2015. N.T., 12/2/2014, at 8. At
the beginning of the sentencing hearing, the trial court reiterated that it had
already accepted Appellant’s open guilty plea. N.T., 2/18/2015, at 4-5. The
trial court received letters from Appellant’s brother and sister. Id. at 13-14.
-7-
J-S37044-22
One of the victims gave impact testimony at sentencing. Id. at 15-21.
Appellant exercised his right to allocution. Id. at 22-33. Before sentencing
Appellant, the trial court stated that it considered the sentencing guidelines,
PSI report, mental health evaluation, terms of the plea, victim impact
testimony, nature of the crimes and use of weapons, Appellant’s 25-year
criminal history, written letters from family and parental relationships, and
Appellant’s statements to the court. Id. at 34-35; see also Commonwealth
v. Watson, 228 A.3d 928, 936 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted) (Where
PSI and/or mental health reports exist, we presume that the sentencing judge
was aware of relevant information regarding the defendant's character and
weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors).
Accordingly, the PCRA court determined that there was no merit to Appellant’s
claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present mitigating
evidence or failing to object to the absence of a PSI report or mental health
evaluation. PCRA Court Opinion, 2/22/22, at 5-6. Based upon review of the
certified record, the parties’ appellate briefs, the PCRA court’s opinion, and
applicable law, we conclude that the PCRA court thoroughly and accurately
addressed all of the issues raised by Appellant and we discern no abuse of
discretion or error of law in ruling on his claims. Consequently, we affirm on
the basis of the PCRA court opinion issued on February 22, 2022 and adopt it
as our own. The parties are instructed to attach a copy of the PCRA court
opinion to all future filings regarding this appeal.
Order affirmed.
-8-
J-S37044-22
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/16/2022
-9-
Circulated 12/06/2022 01:39 PM
0036_Opinion