COMMONWEALTH оf Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Michael B. SINGLEY, Appellant.
868 A.2d 403
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Decided Feb. 24, 2005.
Argued May 12, 2004.
John F. Nelson, Johnstown, Amy Zapp, Harrisburg, for the Com. of PA, appellee.
OPINION
Chief Justice CAPPY.
This is a direct appeal from the judgment of sentence of death1 following the conviction of Appellant Michael B. Singley (“Appellant“) for two counts of first-degree murder,2 two counts of criminal attempt to commit murder,3 one count of rape,4 one count of criminal trespass5 and one count of theft.6 For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
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.
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 beforе 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, Appellant 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 Gilliam in the chest. Appellant turned the weapon on the prone Deborah Hock and fired at her. The shot missed Hock, but the muzzle blast left her with powder burns on her hand and wrist. Appellant left the scene in Christine Rohrer‘s Jeep and drove through the countryside for a few hours before returning to Chambersburg. Appellant then called his girlfriend from a pay phone. Afterwards, he surreptitiously entered his parents’ home, the place where he had been residing. Chambersburg police
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 acceptеd 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 James Gilliam.
A jury was impaneled for the penalty phase proceedings.7 Following six days of testimony, evidence and argument, the jury concluded that with respect to Christine Rohrer‘s murder, Appellant had proved the existence of four mitigating circumstances, namely that he had no significant history of prior criminal convictions,
That same day, the jury found, regarding James Gilliam‘s murder, that the defense had met its burden of proving five mitigating circumstances, namely Appellant had no significant history of prior criminal convictions,
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
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, 500 Pa. 16, 454 A.2d 937, 942 n. 3 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 970, 103 S.Ct. 2444, 77 L.Ed.2d 1327 (1983), reh‘g denied, 463 U.S. 1236, 104 S.Ct. 31, 77 L.Ed.2d 1452 (1983). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, was sufficient to enable the fact finder to сonclude that the Commonwealth established all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Ockenhouse, 562 Pa. 481, 756 A.2d 1130, 1135 (2000).
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, 528 Pa. 546, 599 A.2d 624, 626 (1991). The evidence presented at the guilty plea, degree of guilt and penalty phase hearings demonstrates that Appellant intentionally stabbed Christine Rohrer to death and, in the immediate aftermath, took certain steps to conceal his actions. In the process of fleeing from the Rohrer residence, Appellant
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, 267 Pa. 455, 110 A. 263 (1920) and its progeny foreclose a court‘s ability to accept a guilty plea to first-degree murder. Appellant isolates the following passage from Berkenbush in support of this argument: “[T]he accused may not plead guilty to murder of the first degree. He may plead guilty to murder, but it is incumbent on the court to fix the degree from testimony produced.” Berkenbush, 110 A. at 265.
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, 319 Pa. 65, 178 A. 823 (1935), Commonwealth v. Jones, 355 Pa. 522, 50 A.2d 317 (1947) and Commonwealth v. Appel, 547 Pa. 171, 689 A.2d 891 (1997). Notwithstanding the fact that the passage from Berkenbush was dicta, Appellant contends that its subsequent repetition by our court created a liberty interest in defendants convicted of murder and that this interest requires adherence to procedure following a guilty plea to murder.
First, Appellant is reminded thаt mere repetition does not elevate obiter dicta to the level of binding precedent. See Hunsberger v. Bender, 407 Pa. 185, 180 A.2d 4, 6 (1962) (finding that a statement in prior opinion, which clearly was not decisional but merely dicta, “is not binding upon us“). Therefore, Appellant‘s reliance on the cases he cites is at his own peril, as those cases share an unreliable ancestor in
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, 227 Pa. 86, 75 A. 1024 (1910) and Commonwealth v. Drum, 58 Pa. 9 (Pa.1868) for the proposition that it is a deeply-rooted tradition in our law that the Commonwealth has the burden of proving first-degree murder, which, in turn, cannot be waived by a criminal defendant with the court‘s sanction. Consequently, Appellant argues the trial court denied him his due process rights by accepting his plea.
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 proрosition that, indeed, the Commonwealth has a specific burden 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 plea are foreclosed by our decision in Commonwealth v. Fears, 575 Pa. 281, 836 A.2d 52 (2003). In Fears we held that a defendant is not deprived of his due process rights under
Appellant, in response to our June 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 brеak from past practices and that there is no legitimate 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,
Appellant next contends that the trial court‘s acceptance of his guilty plea to first-degree murder also deprived him of his right against self-incrimination under the
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, Appеllant‘s reliance on Commonwealth v. Sanabria, 478 Pa. 22, 385 A.2d 1292 (1978) is without merit, as that case is distinguishable from the instant matter. In that case, the appellant Jose Sanabria, was one of two co-defendants in a homicide. In both Sanabria and the case it relied upon, Commonwealth v. Garland, 475 Pa. 389, 380 A.2d 777 (1977), one co-defendant attempted to compel the testimony of the other co-defendant, who had previously entered a general plea of guilt to homicide. When these co-defendants declined to testify, citing their Fifth Amendment rights, the trial courts refused to compel their testimony. Appellants in both Sanabria and Garland argued that the pleas of guilt amounted to a waiver of rights against self-incrimination. Sanabria, 385 A.2d at 1295; Garland, 380 A.2d at 779-80. We disagreed in both cases and affirmed the trial courts, holding that the waiver does not go into effect
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.8 In frаming his ineffectiveness claims, Appellant correctly states the general rule that trial counsel is presumed to be effective and the burden to show otherwise lies with the defendant. Commonwealth v. Jones, 546 Pa. 161, 683 A.2d 1181, 1188 (1996). To obtain relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant is required to show that there is merit to the underlying claim; that counsel had no reasonable basis for his course of conduct; and finally, that there is a reasonable probability that but for the act or omission in question, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. Commonwealth v. Douglas, 537 Pa. 588, 645 A.2d 226, 230 (1994); Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153, 527 A.2d 973 (1987). In reviewing any particular claim of ineffectiveness, we need not determine whether the first two prongs of this standаrd are met if the record shows that Appellant has not met the prejudice prong. Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 541 Pa. 108, 661 A.2d 352, 357 (1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1121, 116 S.Ct. 931, 133 L.Ed.2d 858 (1996).
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, 491 Pa. 215, 420 A.2d 419, 421 (1980) (finding counsel not ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless claim); see also Fears, 836 A.2d at 63 (“As we reject [Fears‘] argument that one may not plead guilty to first-degree murder, we likewise reject the ineffectiveness claim arising from this issue.“).
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, at 104. Triаl 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. Counsel is presumed to have acted effectively, which in this case would encompass discussing this option with his client and the burden is on Appellant tо establish that counsel failed in this task. See e.g. Commonwealth v. Ogrod, 576 Pa. 412, 839 A.2d 294 (2003) (stating that a presumption of counsel‘s effectiveness overcome only by Appellant meeting the three-prong Pierce test). We note that the record is replete with missed opportunities for appellate counsel to have developed this issue. In fact, appellate counsel‘s examination of trial counsel pointedly stops short of asking trial counsel this specific question. Appellant would have us infer a failure on the part of trial counsel based upon the assertion that the record is devoid of any testimony or evidence, when, in fact, the absence of any
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 counsel informed the сourt 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 absence of this evidence сould have been of great benefit to Appellant‘s trial strategy, plea negotiations, or sentencing.
Contrary to Appellant‘s position, the record shows that police informed him of his rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) on two occasions. The uncontroverted record also demonstrates that Appellant acknowledged that Detective Dianne Kelso advised him of these rights prior to the interview, that Appellant understood these rights and that Appellant waived those rights to provide the statement to Detective Kelso. See Comm. Ex. 14, Degree of Guilt Hearing 9/19/2000, at 1. Despite having both Appellant and trial counsel testify during the Post-Sentence Motions hearing, appellate counsel failed to utilize these opportunities to substantiate the claim that the confession was obtained in derogation of Appellant‘s constitutional rights.
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, 836 A.2d at 60. Therefore, counsel was not ineffective for not seeking to suppress the confession.
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, 545 Pa. 233, 681 A.2d 130 (1996) and Commonwealth v. Means, 565 Pa. 309, 773 A.2d 143 (2001) to support his argument. Fisher, Appellant contends, bars the admission of such testimony because it interjects arbitrary and impermissible factors into the jury‘s sentencing decision. Means, Appellant suggests, prohibits the admission of generalizations about the victim‘s death on the community and information concerning the victim‘s particular characteristics.
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.
We find no merit to the Appellant‘s claims of excessive testimony. The cumulative effect of the testimony clearly demonstrates that the deaths had а 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 characteristics. Ms. Hock‘s statements were not in a vacuum; but rather, rested within the context оf 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;
Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, we affirm the verdict of first-degree murder and the sentence of death.11
Justice NIGRO files a concurring opinion.
Justice CASTILLE concurs in the result.
Justice NIGRO concurring.
I agree with the majority‘s decision to affirm Apрellant‘s judgment of sentence. I write separately 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 phase of a capital case are unconstitutional.1 See Commonwealth v. Williams, 578 Pa. 504, 854 A.2d 440, 449-50 (2004) (Nigro, J., concurring); Commonwealth v. Rice, 568 Pa. 182, 795 A.2d 340, 363-64 (2002) (Nigro, J., concurring); Commonwealth v. Means, 565 Pa. 309, 773 A.2d 143, 162-67 (2001) (Nigro, J., dissenting). Nonetheless, I recognize that a major-