Commonwealth v. SingleyCommonwealth v. Singley
Lead
OPINION
This is a direct appeal from the judgment
The record reveals that on November 3, 1998, Appellant Michael B. Singley purchased three rolls of duct tape, ammunition for a .44 Magnum handgun, a folding lock-blade hunting knife and camouflage hunting gloves at retail stores in or around Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. He then drove to the neighborhood where his cousin, Travis Rohrer, lived with his wife, Christine Rohrer. Appellant loitered in the neighborhood, waiting for Christine’s arrival home from work. At approximately 5:45 p.m. that evening, Appellant saw Christine Rohrer’s Jeep in the driveway of the duplex where she and her husband resided. Appellant parked his vehicle a block away and proceeded on foot to the Rohrer residence carrying two rolls of duct tape, the gloves, hunting knife, and the ammunition for the handgun he knew that his cousin Travis Rohrer owned. Appellant gained entry into the Rohrer residence by feigning car trouble to Christine and asked to use the telephone to obtain assistance. Appellant indicated to Christine that the car trouble may have been the result of a malfunctioning car battery. Mrs. Rohrer then indicated that she could assist Appellant but first needed to change clothes. Once Mrs. Rohrer was upstairs, Appellant went to her room and began binding Christine Rohrer’s arms and mouth with the duct tape. Appellant went downstairs to retrieve something, and on his return upstairs, Appellant broke through the door which Christine Rohrer managed to lock in his absence. Appellant wrestled with Christine Rohrer for a time and then bound her arms to the bed frame, covered her eyes and mouth with the duct tape, leaving her nostrils exposed and bound her legs with the tape. He unbound her legs and raped Christine Rohrer. Appellant left the bedroom, smoked a cigarette in another room and then re-entered the bedroom where he repeatedly stabbed Christine Rohrer in the chest, neck and torso. She died as a rеsult of the injuries inflicted.
Travis Rohrer returned home at about 8 p.m. that evening and found Appellant on the second floor brandishing both the handgun and the knife. Appellant forced Travis Rohrer into the bedroom, where Christine Rohrer’s body was covered with the bedclothes. Appellant pistol-whipped Travis Rohrer before ordering him to the ground. Appellant then stabbed Travis Rohrer several times in the back. A scuffle ensued, during which both Appellant and Travis Rohrer struggled for control of the handgun. Appellant wrested the gun free and shot Travis Rohrer once in the arm and once in the ribcage before going downstairs. Travis Rohrer survived the assault.
With the keys to Christine Rohrer’s Jeep in hand, Aрpellant exited the Rohrer residence only to come upon Deborah Hock and her fiancée, James Gilliam, who lived in the other half of the duplex where Christine and Travis Rohrer lived. Appellant raised the handgun and fatally shot
Following his arrest, Appellant underwent multiple rounds of medical and psychological testing. On August 16, 2000, following written and oral on-the-record colloquies, the trial court accepted Appellant’s guilty pleas to: first-degree murder of Christine Rohrer; murder generally in the death of James Gilliam; two counts of criminal attempt to commit homicide; criminal trespass; rape; and theft. The trial court conducted a degree of guilt hearing on September 19, 2000, at which the court found Appellant guilty of first-degree murder in the killing of Jamеs Gilliam.
A jury was impaneled for the penalty phase proceedings.
That same day, the jury found, regarding James Gilliam’s murder, that the defense had met its burden of proving live mitigating circumstances, namely Appellant had no significant history of prior criminal convictions, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(e)(1); Appellant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(e)(2); Appellant’s capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was substantially impaired, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(e)(3); Appellant’s age at the time of the crime, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(e)(4); and, any other evidence of mitigation concerning the character and record of Appellant and the circumstances of his offense. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(e)(8). The jury found that
On June 4, 2001, the trial court imposed the above sentences in the first-degree murder charges. The court additionally imposed consecutive sentences of 20 to 40 years and 10 to 20 years of incarceration for the two counts of criminal attempt to commit homicide; 10 to 20 years of incarceration for the rape conviction; and 36 to 84 months of incarceration for the criminal trespass and theft convictions.
Appellant’s trial counsel filed a petition to withdraw on June 11, 2001. Appellant’s current appellate counsel was appointed that same day, and on June 29, 2001, Appellant filed Post-Sentence Motions raising, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel claims, a motion to withdraw the guilty pleas and a motion for a new trial based on the assertion that the jury’s finding that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances in the killing of Christine Rohrer was against the weight of the evidence. On January 28, 2002, the trial court conducted a hearing on all the issues raised in Appellant’s Post-Sеntence Motions. On May 17, 2002, the trial court filed an Order and Opinion, denying all of Appellant’s Post-Sentence Motions. Pursuant to the automatic direct appeal provisions found in 42 Pa.C.S. § 722(4) and § 9711(h)(1), the case progressed to this court for our review.
As with all cases where the death penalty has been imposed, we first must conduct an independent review of the sufficiency of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer,
In order to sustain a finding of first-degree murder, the evidence must establish the unlawful killing of a human being, that the appellant did the killing and that the killing was done in an intentional, deliberate and premeditated way. Commonwealth v. Mitchell,
Having resolved the sufficiency of the evidence inquiry, we now address the issues raised in Appellant’s brief. In his first issue, Appellant contends that the trial court exceeded its authority in accepting Appellant’s guilty plea to first-degree murder in the death of Christine Rohrer. Appellant argues that Commonwealth v. Berkenbush,
Appellant, to his credit, concedes that this passage is not the holding in the case. Nevertheless, Appellant cites several of our decisions that subsequently seized that passage as a positive statement of law. See e.g., Commonwealth v. Iacobino,
First, Appellаnt is reminded that mere repetition does not elevate obiter dicta to the level of binding precedent. See Hunsberger v. Bender,
Appellant’s associated due process argument must fail for similar reasons. Appellant submits that he had a liberty interest in Berkenbush’s dicta which he contends precluded the trial court from accepting his guilty plea to first-degree murder. Moreover, Appellant cites our decisions in Commonwealth v. Greene,
Appellant’s argument is premised, once again, on the precedential value of Berkenbush. As discussed supra, and as conceded by Appellant, the passage in Berkenbush is mere dicta and not the law. Moreover, Appellant’s reliance on Greene and Drum can extend no further than the proposition that, indeed, the Commonwealth has a specific burdеn of proof. These cases do not hold that, much less address the issue of whether, accepting such a guilty plea violates due process. Therefore, Appellant’s due process argument must fail.
Appellant’s arguments regarding a court’s ability to accept a first-degree murder
Appellant, in response to our Junе 2, 2004 Order, framed his analysis solely on the issue of whether Fears applied retroactively to his plea. Appellant’s Supplemental Brief at 4. Appellant argues that Fears has no retroactive effect and that his guilty pleas were impermissible. Appellant’s argument is that the court, in accepting such a plea, abrogates the Commonwealth’s burden and, consequently, denies his due process rights. Appellant contends this error entitles him to have his sentence vacated and also to a remand for the withdrawal of his guilty plea. The Commonwealth, in its Supplemental Brief, contends that Fears is not new law, does not break from past practices and that there is no lеgitimate reason not to apply Fears to the present case. We agree with the Commonwealth.
Appellant places Berkenbush at the foundation for his contention that Fears represents a fundamental shift in precedent on a court’s ability to accept a first-degree murder plea. Prior to Fears, Appellant contends Berkenbush was the controlling standard. As discussed, supra, Appellant’s reliance on Berkenbush’s dicta and the cases that cite to such does not aid his argument. Our holding in Fears, on the contrary, rests on the more solid jurisprudential foundation of our death penalty statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(b), Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 802, and several instances where our court had affirmed the judgments of sentence where defendants entered guilty pleas to first-degree murder charges. See e.g., Commonwealth v. Fiebiger,
Appellant next contends that the trial court’s acceptance of his guilty pléa to first-degree murder also deprived him of his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Appellant contеnds that he would have had such protection at a degree of guilt hearing had he been able to plead to murder generally. Appellant suggests that the trial court exceeded its authority in accepting his guilty plea to first-degree murder and thus used his admission to convict him of that crime. In accepting his plea, Appellant again asserts that the trial court, in accepting his guilty plea to first-degree murder in the death of
First, Appellant’s argument in this regard is dependent on his claim that it was improper for the trial court to allow him to plead to first-degree murder. As we have stated supra, this position is without merit. Similarly, Appellant’s reliance on Commonwealth v. Sanabria,
The instant matter differs substantially. Unlike Sanabria and Garland, this matter does not involve compelling co-defendants to provide exculpatory evidence over their assertion of rights against self-incrimination. Appellant was the only one arrested and tried in these murders. Second, unlike the reluctant co-defendants in those cases, Appellant was not compelled to testify after he entered his guilty plea. Lastly, Appellant, unlike the co-defendants in Sanabria and Garland, never asserted his rights against self-incrimination after he pleaded guilty. In sum, we find no trial court error based upon Appellant’s argument in this regard.
Initially, we note that two of Appellant’s remaining claims allege ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
As we discussed, supra, a defendant is permitted to plead guilty to first-degree murder. There is no infirmity in this approach and therefore we find no arguable merit in this facet of Appellant’s ineffective assistance claim. See Commonwealth v. Giknis,
Thus, we turn to the second facet of Appellant’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Appellant of the option of a degree of guilt hearing with respect to the death of Christine Rohrer and that this failure precluded the assertion of a diminished capacity defense.
Appellant’s claim lacks arguable merit for several reasons. First, trial counsel testified that they contemplated and actually posed the possibility of compelling the Commonwealth to go through degree of guilt hearings on both the Rohrer and Gilliam murders. N.T., Post-Sentence Motions Hearing, 1/28/2002, аt 104. Trial counsel testified that this course of action was dismissed because the prosecution informed them that it would eliminate any chance of the Commonwealth removing the death penalty from sentencing options. Id.
Second, it is difficult to comprehend a scenario, like the one sub judice, wherein a defendant compels the Commonwealth to undertake a degree of guilt hearing on one of two counts of murder in a double homicide and claims later that such a tactic never was discussed on the other charge.
Third, Appellant contends that counsel’s shortcomings precluded his assertion of a diminished capacity defense. Appellant failed to develop on the record that he could have been or was of diminished capacity at the time of the murders. Trial counsel testified that they discussed these defenses with Appellant, but expert reports were against the assertion of these defenses. N.T., Post-Sentence Motions Hearing 1/28/2002, at 92. In fact, trial counsеl informed the court in pre-trial proceedings that Appellant was not going to present expert testimony with regard to mental infirmity in the guilt phase. N.T., Pre-trial Conference 7/14/2000, at 32-3. Moreover, Appellant attaches nothing to his appellate brief to support any conclusion to the contrary. In conclusion, Appellant has not demonstrated that this facet of his ineffectiveness claim has any merit and trial counsel will not be faulted for such.
Turning to Appellant’s second and separate ineffectiveness claim, Appellant finds fault with trial counsel for failing to seek suppression of a statement given to Chambersburg Police in which he admitted to killing Christine Rohrer, stabbing Travis Rohrer and shooting at Deborah Hock and James Gilliam. The statement was admitted into evidence without objection. N.T., Degree of Guilt Hearing 9/19/00, at 121. Appellant contends that this confession was obtained in violation of rights guaranteed to him by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Appellate counsel concedes there is little or no record evidence surrounding the confession and the tactics and manner used to obtain it. Appellant surmises that had trial counsel sought suppression and had such suppression been successful, there would have been one less piece of evidence against him. Appellant argues that the absеnce of this evidence could have been of great benefit to Appellant’s trial strategy, plea negotiations, or sentencing.
It is difficult to discern the precise nature of these claims, as they are stated in bald, conclusory terms and lack any semblance of precision as to their individual merits. Appellant, for example, fails to cite the moments when these rights attached, what acts, if any, were done in violation of these rights, or any case law to support such conclusions. Appellant’s trial counsel testified at the hearing on Post-Sentence Motions that they chose not to seek suppression of the confession “becausе it would have done Mr. Singley no good and there were things in the confession that we thought might help him in a mitigation phase.” N.T., PosC-Sentence Motions Hearing 1/28/02, at 61. Appellant now contends that the merit of this position is inconceivable and that the prejudice
Contrary to Appellant’s position, the record shows that police informed him of his rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona,
Again, proceeding under the analytical framework of Pierce, we find no arguable merit in Appellant’s claims. The record does not establish, nor did Appellant demonstrate that Appellant invoked his right to counsel or his right to silence so as to trigger the prohibition against all further police-initiated conversations. See Fears,
Appellant’s final argument pertains to the admission of victim impact testimony in the penalty phase of his trial. Appellant raises this claim as an instance of trial court error, claiming that the trial court improperly permitted this testimony over his trial counsel’s objection. During the penalty phase of a capital murder trial in this Commonwealth, “evidence concerning the victim and the impact that the death of the victim has had on the family of the victim is admissible.” Commonwealth v. Williams,
During the penalty phase of the trial, the Commonwealth called upon Christine Rohrer’s mother, brother and husband, Travis Rohrer, to testify to the impact of her death and James Gilliam’s father and fiancée, Deborah Hock, to testify similarly regarding Gilliam’s death.
Appellant argues that the victim impact testimony was not relevant to a specific aggravating circumstance and therefore was unduly inflammatory and prejudicial. Appellant relies upon our decisions in Commonwealth v. Fisher,
Appellant took specific issue with the testimony from Rev. James Gilliam, father of James Gilliam. Rev. Gilliam testified that his deceased son was his only son and that his death, without any children, specifically male children, prevented the Gilliam family name from continuing beyond him. N.T., Penalty Phase Hearing 1/25/01, at 143.
Appellant similarly takes issue with Ms. Hock’s testimony regarding her participation in an event at her fiancée’s workplace.
We find no merit to the Appellant’s claims of excessive testimony. The cumulative effеct of the testimony clearly demonstrates that the deaths had a profound effect on the respective families. The testimony was not generalized statements on the effect of deaths of Christine Rohrer and James Gilliam on the community, nor did it concern any of the victim’s particular characteristics. Rather, the statements were an individualized and subjective commentary on the consequences of the murders. Appellant’s contentions regarding Ms. Hock’s statements likewise must fail. Appellant improperly trains his focus in this regard on Ms. Hock’s references to her fiancée’s employer and the award’s recognition of James Gilliam’s characteristiсs. Ms. Hock’s statements were not in a vacuum; but rather, rested within the context of her relating her personal involvement in the award ceremony and are followed immediately by her statements regarding the impact Gilliam’s murder had on her teenaged son, their relationship, and her own anger-management issues. N.T., Penalty Phase Hearing 1/25/01, at 140-41. In sum, we find no issue with the trial court’s admission of the victim impact testimony and therefore the sentencing process was not fundamentally unfair.
Finally, we will address whether the sentence of death was a product of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor; 42 Pa.C.S. 9711(h)(3). We have engaged in a careful review of the trial recоrd. Based upon that review, we conclude that the sentence of death in Appellant’s case was not the product of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. Rather, the sentence was based upon the evidence admitted at trial and in compliance with the statutory mandate for the imposition of a sentence of death where one or more aggravating circumstances are found to outweigh any mitigating circumstances. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(c)(l)(iv). Furthermore, we have determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the aggravating circumstances the jury found in imposing the death penalty.
Accordingly, for all the foregoing rеasons, we affirm the verdict of first-degree murder and the sentence of death.
Notes
. See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 722(4), 9711(h)(1); Pa.R.A.P. 702(b) and 1941.
. 18 Pa.C.S. § 2501.
. 18 Pa.C.S. § 901.
. 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121.
. 18 Pa.C.S. § 3503.
. 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921.
. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(a).
. We held in Commonwealth v. Grant
. A review of our precedent on the diminished capacity defense reveals that a defendant who successfully asserts this defense has shown that he was incapable of forming the specific intent to kill and first-degree murder is mitigated to third, not second, degree murder. See Commonwealth v. Travaglia,
. Diminished capacity is an extremely limited defense. Travaglia,
. The Prothonotary of this Court is directed to transmit to the Governor’s office a full and complete record of the trial, sentencing hearing, imposition of sentence and opinion and order by the Supreme Court in accordance with 42 Pa.C.S. § 971 l(i).
Concurrence Opinion
concurring.
I agree with the majority’s decision to affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence. I write seрarately merely to note that with regard to Appellant’s claim that the trial court improperly admitted victim impact testimony during his penalty phase, I continue to believe that the statutory provisions that permit the jury to consider victim impact testimony during the penalty
ity of this Court has concluded otherwise, and under that binding precedent, I must agree that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting victim impact testimony during the penalty phase of Appellant’s trial.
. In Commonwealth v. Means,