COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RAPHAEL STEWART
No. 495 EDA 2024
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FILED SEPTEMBER 2, 2025
J-S12007-25; NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37; Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 8, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0210251-1999
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:
Appellant, Raphael Stewart, appeals from the February 8, 2024, order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County dismissing his petition for collateral relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA“),
The PCRA court summarized the relevant factual background as follows.
On November 18, 1998, at approximately 7:00 p.m., Marlon Wilson, Darris Cuthbert, and Danny Milton stood on the corner of Colorado Street and Susquehanna Avenue in the City and County of Philadelphia. Marlon Wilson and Darris Cuthbert were selling drugs. While they were doing so, [Appellant], Dexter Lawrence, and another unidentified individual approached Marlon Wilson, [Darris] Cuthbert, and Danny Milton. After words were exchanged regarding an alleged robbery of a drug house on Taney Street, Appellant, Dexter Lawrence, and the unidentified individual began shooting towards Marlon Wilson, [Darris] Cuthbert, and Danny Milton. As a result of the shooting, Darris Cuthbert died and Marlon Wilson suffered significant injuries after being shot in the neck, both legs and stomach. Danny Milton sustained no injuries.
PCRA Court Opinion, 7/25/24, at 1 (footnotes and unnecessary capitalization omitted).1
Appellant timely appealed. On March 15, 2016, we affirmed the judgment of sentence. See Stewart, No. 3375 EDA 2014. Appellant did not seek further review before our Supreme Court.
On December 8, 2016, Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition, claiming, inter alia, that trial counsel was ineffective for agreeing with the Commonwealth not to cross-examine Commonwealth witnesses Marlon Wilson and Danny Milton about their sentence exposure in outstanding criminal matters. After the PCRA court appointed counsel, on October 16, 2017, counsel filed an amended PCRA petition raising multiple claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, including the claim described above. On
A timely appeal followed. Upon review, we remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the limited issue of why trial counsel elected not to impeach Commonwealth witnesses Marlon Wilson and Danny Milton with their motive to lie. We affirmed the PCRA court‘s order in all other respects. See Commonwealth v. Stewart, No. 2647 EDA 2018, 2019 WL 5491357 (Pa. Super. October 25, 2019) (unpublished memorandum). On April 6, 2020, our Supreme Court denied Appellant‘s petition for allowance of appeal. See Commonwealth v. Stewart, 228 A.3d 891 (Table) (Pa. 2020).
An evidentiary hearing was held on September 6, 2023. Ultimately, the PCRA court found Appellant was not entitled to relief. Accordingly, on February 8, 2024, the PCRA court dismissed the petition. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Appellant argues that the PCRA court erred in not finding in his favor regarding two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, namely (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to cross-examine Marlon Wilson and Danny Milton regarding maximum sentence exposure, potential supervision and immigration benefits and consequences for testifying against Appellant, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective in the impeachment of Danny Milton on cross-examination regarding a crimen falsi conviction.
The constitutional standard for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel requires defendant to rebut the presumption of professional competence by demonstrating that: (1) his underlying claim is of arguable merit, (2) the particular course of conduct pursued by counsel did not have some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his interests, and (3) but for counsel‘s ineffectiveness, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different; failure to satisfy any prong of the test for ineffectiveness requires rejection of the claim. See Commonwealth v. Spotz, 870 A.2d 822, 829-30 (Pa. 2005).
Regarding the first claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to cross-examine Marlon Wilson and Danny Milton concerning any motive to lie, we find the claim meritless as the record shows that trial counsel did in fact cross-examine the witnesses regarding their open matters. See N.T. Trial, 11/13/14, at 5, 140-142; N.T. Evidentiary Hearing, 9/6/23, at 10, 26, 49, 78-81; see also PCRA Court Opinion, 7/25/24, at 4. Additionally, the record shows that there was no agreement between trial counsel and the Commonwealth limiting trial counsel‘s ability to ask Marlon Wilson and Danny
On his second claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a jury instruction concerning Danny Milton‘s crimen falsi conviction,2 we conclude Appellant failed to show any prejudice he suffered from the omission. In fact, the record shows that the trial court gave the instruction at issue here. See N.T. Trial, 11/17/14, at 115-17. Thus, while Appellant might have a meritorious claim, Appellant cannot satisfy the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim as the trial court gave the instruction at issue here. Accordingly, no relief is due.
In light of the foregoing, we affirm the order of the PCRA court.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/2/2025