COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Craig WILLIAMS, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Submitted June 3, 2008. Decided Oct. 2, 2009.
980 A.2d 510
Hugh J. Burns, Esq., Amy Zapp, Esq., Philadelphia District Attorney‘s Office, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
BEFORE: CASTILLE, C.J., and SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, McCAFFERY and GREENSPAN, JJ.
OPINION
Justice BAER.
On October 19, 2001, our Court remanded this post-conviction capital case to the Philadelphia County Common Pleas Court (“PCRA court“) because it had improperly adopted the reasoning set forth in the Commonwealth‘s motion to dismiss, and failed to issue a substantive opinion addressing the merits of the petition filed by Appellant, Craig Williams. Commonwealth v. Williams, 566 Pa. 553, 782 A.2d 517 (2001) (Williams I). Following remand, the Commonwealth consented to the grant of a new capital penalty hearing. Accordingly, on July 11, 2006, without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the PCRA court entered an order, which granted Appellant a new penalty hearing, and dismissed his guilt-phase claims.1 The PCRA court thereafter issued an opinion regarding Appellant‘s guilt-phase claims pursuant to our directive. Appellant has appealed that portion of the PCRA‘s order, which denied him a new trial. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm.
The circumstances underlying Appellant‘s convictions of first degree murder and related offenses were set forth in detail in our opinion in Williams I, as well as in our opinion affirming Appellant‘s judgment of sentence of death on direct appeal. Commonwealth v. Williams, 532 Pa. 265, 615 A.2d 716 (1992). For purposes of clarity, we shall restate those facts relevant to the issues presented.
During voir dire, defense counsel objected to the prosecutor‘s purported discriminatory use of peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from the jury, and the trial court directed the prosecutor to articulate her reasons for the strikes. The trial court credited the prosecutor‘s race-neutral explanations and concluded that Appellant failed to establish purposeful discrimination.2
At trial, the Commonwealth presented testimony from two eyewitnesses, Kevin Harrell and Catherine Rivers. Harrell testified that he observed Appellant holding a gun as he moved toward Russell, Riggins, and the blue Cadillac on North Lambert Street. He explained that he heard gunshots and then saw Russell fall to the ground. Harrell did not see any gunshots being fired from the Cadillac. Rivers testified that she was looking out the window of her residence when she saw a young boy shooting at a blue car. She corroborated Harrell‘s testimony that no shots were fired from the vehicle.
Appellant did not testify at trial, but presented four witnesses who testified that they observed Riggins, and not Appellant, fire the shots that killed Russell.3 While all the defense witnesses indicated that Appellant was not carrying a gun, they gave varying accounts of the incident, some of which were inconsistent with the physical evidence.
The jury resolved the credibility determinations in favor of the Commonwealth, and, on June 16, 1988, convicted Appellant of first degree murder, recklessly endangering another person, and possessing an instrument of crime. At the conclusion of the penalty hearing, the jury found one aggravating circumstance, that Appellant knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person in addition to the victim of the offense,
While the direct appeal was pending, on April 23, 1991, trial counsel committed suicide. Thereafter, on October 9, 1992, this Court affirmed Appellant‘s conviction and sentence. Williams, 532 Pa. 265, 615 A.2d 716 (1992). On May 20, 1996, Appellant filed a pro se petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA“),
Therein, Appellant asserted that the Commonwealth violated former Pa.R.C.P. 352 by failing to provide written notice of
The Commonwealth subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, in which it sought dismissal of the PCRA petition based on
On November 13, 1997, the PCRA court conducted a brief proceeding, spanning only ten pages of testimony. In addition to PCRA counsel, an attorney for the former Center for Legal Education, Advocacy, and Defense Assistance (“CLEADA“) appeared to advocate for Appellant. No substantive arguments were advanced by the parties regarding the PCRA petition or the Commonwealth‘s motion to dismiss. Instead,
Appellant thereafter filed a series of affidavits and documents supporting his PCRA claims. After reviewing such filings, but without conducting any further on-the-record proceeding, the PCRA court issued an order on December 4, 1997, denying the amended PCRA petition. PCRA counsel filed a notice of appeal, and was thereafter granted leave to withdraw. Counsel for CLEADA pursued Appellant‘s PCRA appeal.
As mentioned in the outset of this opinion, the PCRA court adopted the reasoning set forth in the Commonwealth‘s motion to dismiss in its written opinion supporting the denial of the PCRA petition. Appellant subsequently filed a motion in our Court seeking, inter alia, a remand. While the Commonwealth initially opposed such relief, it ultimately assented, based on our then-recent decision in Commonwealth v. Roy Williams, 557 Pa. 207, 732 A.2d 1167 (1999), in which we held that the PCRA court erred by adopting the Commonwealth‘s motion to dismiss, without affording an autonomous judicial expression of the reasons for dismissal of the PCRA petition.
As both Appellant and the Commonwealth agreed that a remand was appropriate pursuant to Roy Williams, we held that the appropriate course was to remand to the PCRA court for the preparation of an adequate opinion. Williams I, 782 A.2d at 522. We indicated that the “PCRA court will be authorized to conduct such hearings as may be necessary or appropriate to the completion of this task, guided by the framework established in [Roy Williams].” Id. at 523. Acknowledging that Appellant‘s petition could be vulnerable to dismissal for failure to allege properly appellate counsel ineffectiveness, this Court emphasized that the PCRA court did not indicate in its dismissal notice that Appellant‘s amended petition was deficient in this regard. Thus, we concluded that
During the years following the remand, the PCRA court conducted numerous status listings and hearings, during which it addressed various discovery requests and motions. While the parties and the PCRA court discussed the prospect of conducting an evidentiary hearing regarding the factual averments contained in the PCRA petition and the parameters of the evidence to be presented, no hearing was ever conducted.6 On November 8, 2004, pursuant to
As referenced supra, on June 8 2006, the Commonwealth conceded that a new penalty hearing was warranted,7 but contended that an evidentiary hearing was no longer neces-
Therein, the court initially noted that Appellant‘s guilt-phase claims were subject to dismissal pursuant to Section 9543(b) of the PCRA, which allows for dismissal due to prejudicial delay in filing. The PCRA court found that, while Appellant‘s petition was filed within the statutory time limit, see n. 4, supra, he delayed filing his petition for more than five years after trial counsel‘s death, rendering the Commonwealth unable to rebut the allegations of conflict of interest and trial counsel ineffectiveness. The court held that such allegations were clearly known to Appellant prior to trial counsel‘s death.
Nevertheless, the PCRA court examined the substance of the claims raised and found them to be without merit. The court held that Appellant‘s trial counsel presented a competent defense based on eyewitness testimony, and that Appellant‘s bald claim of a conflict of interest was unsubstantiated. It noted that the fact that Appellant‘s intended victim, Riggins, paid a portion of Appellant‘s legal fees did not cause trial counsel to decline to call her as a witness. According to the trial court, trial counsel did not call Riggins to testify because her purported testimony, which indicated that Appellant fired the fatal shots by accident, was inconsistent with Appellant‘s defense that Riggins was the shooter. The court further rejected Appellant‘s contention that trial counsel was motivated only by the payment of fees. It relied on trial counsel‘s October 4, 1989 letter to the court, which stated that he filed post-trial motions “as a matter of courtesy” because Appellant‘s family lacked funds, and requested that the Commonwealth be charged with the costs of transcribing the notes of testimony.8
Additionally, the PCRA court rejected Appellant‘s claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a Batson claim on direct appeal. The court noted that Appellant failed to provide the requisite record pursuant to Commonwealth v. Spence, 534 Pa. 233, 627 A.2d 1176 (1993), setting forth the identity of the race of the venirepersons who had been removed by the prosecution, the race of the jurors who served, and the race of the venirepersons who were acceptable to the Commonwealth, but who were stricken by the defense. The court also noted that the Batson claim failed on the merits because the trial court credited the prosecutor‘s race-neutral reasons for the strikes when trial counsel objected at trial.
The PCRA court also ruled that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the trial court‘s jury charge regarding the Commonwealth‘s burden of proving malice, as such charge was proper. Likewise, the court found that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request an instruction on imperfect self-defense or involuntary manslaughter because such charges were not supported by the evidence.
Current counsel subsequently entered their appearance, and filed the instant appeal to this Court. On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard of review calls for us to determine whether the findings of the PCRA court are supported by the record and are free from legal error.
Initially, we note that, to be eligible for PCRA relief, Appellant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the enumerated circumstances found at
I. Law of the Case Doctrine
Appellant first contends that the PCRA court violated the “law of the case” doctrine9 by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing when such directive was implicit in our opinion in Williams I, and the Commonwealth expressly assented to the same. He emphasizes that at status conferences held in 2002 and 2005, the PCRA court indicated that it was granting an evidentiary hearing. According to Appellant, the PCRA court did not rule to the contrary until after the Commonwealth conceded to the grant of a new penalty hearing in June of 2006, and argued, for the first time, that the guilt phase claims should be resolved on the pleadings. Appellant maintains that an evidentiary hearing is warranted to assess the credibility of
We reject the contention that our ruling in Williams I required the PCRA court to hold an evidentiary hearing. The basis for our remand in Williams I was for the preparation of an adequate opinion, given the fact that the PCRA court set forth no independent analysis, and instead adopted the reasoning set forth in the Commonwealth‘s motion to dismiss to support the denial of PCRA relief. 782 A.2d at 522. As noted, we specified in Williams I, at 523, that the “PCRA court will be authorized to conduct such hearings as may be necessary or appropriate to the completion of this task, guided by the framework established in [Roy Williams].” As we did not mandate that an evidentiary hearing be conducted, our ruling, on its own, did not oblige the PCRA court to take such action. Likewise, we do not find it improper for the Commonwealth to change its position regarding the necessity of an evidentiary hearing after it conceded that a new penalty hearing was warranted. However, as the determination regarding the necessity of an evidentiary hearing depends upon the nature of each claim raised, we shall revisit this inquiry, as necessary, when resolving the various issues presented. See
II. Dismissal of Claims Due to Prejudicial Delay
Appellant next contends that the PCRA court erred in concluding that his claims were subject to dismissal due to prejudicial delay pursuant to
Even if the petitioner has met the requirements of subsection (a), the petition shall be dismissed if it appears at any time that, because of delay in filing the petition, the Commonwealth has been prejudiced either in its ability to respond to the petition or in its ability to re-try the petitioner. A petition may be dismissed due to delay in the filing by the petitioner only after a hearing upon a motion to dismiss. This subsection does not apply if the petitioner shows that the petition is based on grounds of which the petitioner could not have discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence before the delay became prejudicial to the Commonwealth.
Appellant argues that this section cannot serve as the basis for dismissal because the statutory language expressly precludes dismissal of a petition absent a hearing on the Commonwealth‘s motion to dismiss. He submits that no such hearing was conducted, and that the Commonwealth has not sustained its burden of proving that the delay in filing the claims prejudiced its ability to either respond to the petition or retry Appellant. Finally, Appellant refutes the notion that his ineffectiveness claims should have been raised on direct appeal when trial counsel was alive and Appellant was represented by new direct appeal counsel.11 He maintains that if he had raised the ineffectiveness claims in his direct appeal filed in 1990, trial counsel, who died on April 21, 1991, would likely have already been deceased before any evidentiary hearing was conducted.
We agree with Appellant that dismissal pursuant to Section 9543(b) is not warranted here. While the Commonwealth presented argument based on that statutory provision in its motion to dismiss, the PCRA court did not conduct an eviden-
III. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Appellant‘s remaining claims allege the ineffective assistance of trial counsel and direct appeal counsel. It is well-established that counsel is presumed effective, and the defendant bears the burden of proving ineffectiveness. Commonwealth v. Cooper, 596 Pa. 119, 941 A.2d 655, 664 (2007). To overcome this presumption, Appellant must satisfy a three-pronged test and demonstrate that: (1) the underlying substantive claim has arguable merit; (2) counsel whose effectiveness is being challenged did not have a reasonable basis for his or her actions or failure to act; and (3) the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel‘s deficient performance. Commonwealth v. (Michael) Pierce, 567 Pa. 186, 786 A.2d 203, 213 (2001). A claim of ineffectiveness will be denied
In Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48, 813 A.2d 726 (2002), this Court abrogated the rule that ineffectiveness claims based on trial counsel‘s performance must be raised at the first opportunity where appellant has new counsel, see Commonwealth v. Hubbard, 472 Pa. 259, 372 A.2d 687, 695 n. 6 (1977), and held that a defendant “should wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel until collateral review.” Grant, 813 A.2d at 738. That holding, however, does not apply to the instant case because Appellant‘s direct appeal concluded prior to our decision in Grant. Rainey, 928 A.2d at 225. Under these circumstances, we shall analyze Appellant‘s ineffectiveness claims under the pre-Grant framework. Id.
We keep in mind, however, that in Commonwealth v. McGill, 574 Pa. 574, 832 A.2d 1014 (2003), this Court addressed the proper layering of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and held that a PCRA petitioner must present argument as to each layer of ineffectiveness, establishing all three prongs of the ineffectiveness standard for each attorney. Id. at 1022. Because this Court had not been entirely clear as to what was required of a PCRA petitioner seeking to plead and prove a layered claim of ineffectiveness before McGill, we stated that “a remand to the PCRA court may be appropriate for cases currently pending in the appellate courts where the petitioner has failed to preserve, by pleading and/or presenting, a layered ineffectiveness claim in a manner sufficient to warrant merits review.” Id. at 1024. A remand is unnecessary, however, where the post-conviction petitioner fails to “thoroughly plead and prove” the underlying allegation that
IV. Conflict of Interest
Appellant first claims that trial counsel was ineffective because he was burdened by a conflict of interest. This claim was not raised on direct appeal when Appellant was represented by new counsel and is therefore waived.14 See
Specifically, Appellant claims that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance due to a conflict of interest arising from his acceptance of legal fees from Appellant‘s paramour, Erica Riggins. He contends that Riggins’ payment of fees precluded trial counsel from presenting Riggins’ testimony in support of an alternative defense that Appellant shot the victim by accident, instead of pursing the defense that Riggins, and not Appellant, was the perpetrator. Appellant relies upon Riggins’ declaration, which asserts that she informed trial counsel that she wanted to testify on Appellant‘s behalf, but that trial counsel would not call her as a witness because she had paid $5,000 toward Appellant‘s legal fees. Riggins’ proffered testimony was corroborated, in part, by the declarations submitted by Appellant‘s mother, Joyce Carter, and his other paramour, Jean Hargrove.15 Appellant additionally suggests, without elaboration, that trial counsel withheld unspecified legal services due to the non-payment of his total fee.
Here, there is no factual basis for the claim that a conflict of interest arose from Riggins’ payment of Appellant‘s legal fees. It would be simply illogical to conclude that trial counsel was acting in furtherance of Riggins’ interests (and adverse to Appellant‘s interests) when he pursued the defense that Riggins was the perpetrator. While Appellant may fault trial counsel for the defense strategy chosen, he has failed to demonstrate that such strategy constituted ineffectiveness resulting from a conflict of interest in accepting fees from Riggins. It is likely that trial counsel decided not to call Riggins as a witness because her testimony would have confirmed the Commonwealth‘s theory that Appellant was shooting at Riggins when he mistakenly killed the victim. Further, counsel has failed to identify any particular legal services that were purportedly withheld due to lack of payment of fees. Accordingly, assuming the facts as alleged by Appellant, there is no arguable merit to the claim of trial counsel ineffectiveness and the corresponding claim of appellate counsel ineffectiveness fails.17, 18 Thus, the PCRA court did not err in failing to hold an evidentiary issue on the conflict of interest claim.
Appellant next contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the jury charge defining third degree murder. This claim is waived because it was not raised on direct appeal. See
Appellant argues that the trial court‘s instruction on third degree murder misinterpreted
We have held that “[w]hen evaluating jury instructions, the charge must be read as a whole to determine whether it was fair or prejudicial.” Commonwealth v. Robinson, 583 Pa. 358, 877 A.2d 433, 444 (2005); Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 567 Pa. 310, 787 A.2d 292, 301 (2001). “The trial court has broad discretion in phrasing its instructions, and may choose its own wording so long as the law is clearly, adequately, and accurately presented to the jury for its consideration.” Id. There is error only when the trial court abuses its discretion or inaccurately states the law. Commonwealth v. Markman, 591 Pa. 249, 916 A.2d 586, 613 (2007).
To evaluate Appellant‘s claim, we look to the trial court‘s instructions explaining the various degrees of murder. First, the trial court defined first degree murder, in relevant part, as follows:
Murder of the first degree is a criminal homicide that is committed with a specific intent to kill. It is this specific intention to kill which distinguishes it from other degrees of murder. An intentional killing is a killing by means of poison or by lying in wait or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated act.
N.T. 6/16/88, at 457. The trial court briefly addressed the definition of second degree murder and indicated that it did
All murder which is not murder of the first degree or murder of the second degree under the law shall be murder of the third degree and again the doctrine of transferred intent applies. What is that kind of definition of third degree murder? Third degree murder is an unlawful killing of another person with malice as I defined it for you but with an intention to inflict grievous bodily injury on another person and not to take human life and yet as a result of the infliction of an injury, death does result. So, third degree murder includes any unlawful killing of a human being with malice but where no intention to actually kill exists or can reasonably and fully be inferred from the circumstances. So, if there is an unlawful killing where there‘s wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart, cruelty, recklessness of consequences and a mind regardless of social duty but if no specific intention to kill can be inferred or collected, that is no intention to kill anyone can be inferred or collected from the facts, then the verdict should be guilty of murder in the third degree. Malice in murder of the third degree is the malicious design to do harm but not to kill. Third degree murder therefore is the unlawful taking of a human life with malice aforethought with no specific intention to kill another person but with the intention to inflict grievous bodily harm on another person and yet as a result of inflicting that injury death results.
Id. at 459-60.
After defining voluntary manslaughter, the trial court summarized the applicable law as follows:
Let me summarize the law regarding murder and manslaughter. Murder of the first degree is an unlawful, willful, deliberate and premeditated killing with malice. It is accompanied by a specific intent to kill. Murder of the second degree doesn‘t apply. Murder of the third degree includes all unlawful killings with malice but where no
intention to kill exists or can reasonably and fully be inferred from the circumstances....
Id., at 462.
Contrary to Appellant‘s contentions, when read in its entirety, we conclude that the trial court‘s instruction adequately and accurately explained to the jury the law regarding third degree murder. Appellant‘s first challenge is based on the assertion that the instruction improperly led the jury to believe that it could only find Appellant guilty of third degree murder if it found that he intended to inflict grievous bodily injury on another person, and death resulted. The trial court did not, however, expressly instruct the jury that such intent was mandatory for third degree murder, but instead included such intent as a valid means of establishing the requisite malice. See Commonwealth v. Thomas, 552 Pa. 621, 717 A.2d 468, 479-80 (1998) (holding that third degree murder requires malice, which may include an intent to cause serious bodily injury that results in death, but third degree murder does not require such intent because malice can also be established by a wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart, cruelty, recklessness of consequences and a mind regardless of social duty, which indicates an unjustified disregard for the likelihood of death or great bodily harm, and an extreme indifference to the value of human life). Here, the trial court‘s instruction, when read as a whole, adequately informed the jury of the various ways of demonstrating the requisite malice in a manner sufficient to establish third degree murder. Moreover, the jury charge correctly explained that third degree murder “includes any unlawful killing of a human being with malice but where no intention to actually kill exists or can reasonably and fully be inferred from the circumstances.” N.T. 6/16/1988, at 459. As this is an accurate statement of the law; the trial court did not err in charging the jury and prior counsel were not ineffective for failing to object or raise such claim on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Busanet, 572 Pa. 535, 817 A.2d 1060, 1075 (2002) (counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise meritless challenge to jury instructions).
VI. Charge on Voluntary Manslaughter
Appellant next argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the jury charge defining voluntary manslaughter because the charge failed to state that the Commonwealth bore the burden of proving the elements of the offense.21 This claim is waived as Appellant did not raise it on direct appeal. See
Significantly, Appellant acknowledges that the trial court generally instructed the jury that the Commonwealth had the burden of proving the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.23 He argues, however, that such instruction should have been repeated in the specific charge on voluntary manslaughter, as it was in the instructions given to the jury on other offenses. Appellant submits that because the jury was not informed that the Commonwealth bore the burden of proof in this regard, and because the trial court stated that “it is necessary that the circumstances indicate an absence of malice,” N.T. 6/16/1988 at 460, the jury may have believed that Appellant was required to prove the absence of malice, which is necessary to demonstrate voluntary manslaughter.
When viewed in its entirety, it is undisputed that the trial court‘s charge clearly informed the jury that the Commonwealth had the burden of proving every element of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. Holloway, 559 Pa. 258, 739 A.2d 1039, 1047-48 (1999) (rejecting claim that trial court erroneously neglected to instruct the jury that the Commonwealth had the burden of proving each and every element of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt when trial court so instructed the jury). Appellant offers no support for the proposition that the
VII. Diminished Capacity
Appellant next argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present a diminished capacity defense. He alleges that there was sufficient evidence supporting a diminished capacity defense, including his history of mental health problems, head injuries, and alleged child abuse;24 but that trial counsel failed to conduct any type of pre-trial investigation to discover such information and, instead, pursued a misidentification defense based on contradictory testimony. This claim is waived as it was not raised on direct appeal. See
Diminished capacity is a limited defense, which does not exculpate the defendant from criminal liability entirely, but instead negates the element of specific intent. Commonwealth v. Gibson, 597 Pa. 402, 951 A.2d 1110, 1131-32 (2008) (citations omitted). Thus, a defendant asserting a diminished capacity defense admits responsibility for the underlying action, but contests the degree of culpability based upon his inability to formulate the requisite mental state. Id. at 1132. Consequently, where a defendant has denied committing a crime during his trial testimony, this Court has refused to find counsel ineffective for failing to present a defense that would have conflicted with such testimony. Id., See also Commonwealth v. Spotz, 587 Pa. 1, 896 A.2d 1191, 1218 (2006); Commonwealth v. Hughes, 865 A.2d at 788; Commonwealth v. Williams, 577 Pa. 473, 846 A.2d 105, 111 (2004); Commonwealth v. Paolello, 542 Pa. 47, 665 A.2d 439, 455 (1995).
Based on the aforementioned case law, the PCRA court ruled that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to present the defense of diminished capacity because it was inconsistent with the misidentification defense actually presented. Appellant‘s claim, however, is not so readily dismissed.26 First, Appellant did not deny committing the offense at trial, as he did not testify on his own behalf. The defense presented by trial counsel consisted of the presentation of testimony from four eyewitnesses, who stated that they observed Erica Riggins fire the fatal shots. Appellant is not
While Appellant‘s claim raises serious allegations, he offers little by way of proof. First, as trial counsel is deceased and none of the defense witnesses has recanted their testimony, the only evidence supporting the patent falsity of the defense presented is Appellant‘s self-serving statement. Moreover, Appellant does not explain why he silently sat through the 1988 trial while counsel presented an “entirely false defense,” and waited until 1996 to first challenge the strategy in a PCRA petition. Further, Appellant‘s own claim of ineffectiveness is internally inconsistent in that he implies that trial counsel fabricated the defense, yet recognizes that trial counsel did not have an opportunity to even interview such witnesses adequately as they surfaced on the eve of trial. See N.T. 6/15/1988, at 285-86 (trial counsel indicating to the court that he had never seen the witnesses before the morning of trial and was unaware of one of the witness’ existence until that day).
VIII. Lack of Specific Intent; Passion/Provocation Defense
Appellant next alternatively contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present the defense that he lacked the specific intent to kill, not because of a mental impairment as he set forth in his previous claim, but because
To elaborate, Appellant asserts that his two paramours, Riggins and Hargrove, had an increasingly violent history, and that Hargrove‘s family pressured him to protect Hargrove and his unborn child from any future harm. He explains that when he discovered that Riggins had returned to Hargrove‘s neighborhood, he panicked, and fired his gun solely to scare Riggins. Appellant contends that the physical evidence supports the view that he was not aiming directly at Riggins. He concludes that because the Commonwealth‘s evidence of specific intent to kill was weak and based on circumstantial evidence, trial counsel was ineffective for not presenting the defense that he lacked the specific intent to kill.
As we have already concluded that trial counsel had a reasonable strategy in pursing a misidentification defense, the claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present the inconsistent defense of a lack of specific intent defense likewise fails.30 As such, the instant claim of appellate counsel ineffectiveness lacks arguable merit.
Appellant, who is African American, argues that the prosecutor utilized peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race, and gave pre-textural reasons to justify such challenges in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, supra. Trial counsel objected to the prosecutor‘s exercise of peremptory challenges during voir dire, but the claim was not advanced on direct appeal, and is therefore waived. See
In Batson, the United States Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause forbids a prosecutor from challenging potential jurors solely on account of their race. Id., 476 U.S. at 89, 106 S.Ct. 1712. The framework for analyzing a Batson claim is three-fold:
[F]irst, the defendant must make a prima facie showing that the circumstances give rise to an inference that the prosecutor struck one or more prospective jurors on account of race; second, if the prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to articulate a race-neutral explanation for striking the juror(s) at issue; and third, the trial court must then make the ultimate determination of whether the defense has carried its burden of proving purposeful discrimination. Batson, 476 U.S. at 97, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69.
***
If a race-neutral explanation is tendered, the trial court must then proceed to the third prong of the test, i.e., the ultimate determination of whether the opponent of the strike has carried his burden of proving purposeful discrimination. Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834. It is at this stage that the persuasiveness of the facially-neutral explanation proffered by the Commonwealth is relevant.
Commonwealth v. Cook, 597 Pa. 572, 952 A.2d 594, 602-03 (2008) (emphasis supplied), citing Commonwealth v. Harris, 572 Pa. 489, 817 A.2d 1033, 1042-43 (2002).
The record establishes that after the prosecutor exercised six peremptory challenges to strike minority prospective jurors (five of whom were African American and one of whom was Hispanic), trial counsel objected, and contended that the challenges were racially motivated. The trial court then concluded that a prima facie case had been made out under the first prong of the Batson analysis, and proceeded to examine the second Batson prong by directing the prosecutor to state her reasons for striking the six minority venirepersons. See N.T. 6/9/1988 at 276. (“Without making any judgments, I think the prima facie case has been made out.... I think that I am required under the law now to ask the Commonwealth to explain the exercise of its peremptory challenges.“).
Later in the voir dire, the prosecutor exercised a final peremptory challenge against African American Dewyne Johnson and, upon objection by trial counsel, the prosecutor explained that Johnson was struck because her manner did not appear consistent with her answers to the questions posed. The prosecutor further explained that Johnson may not have been able to serve fairly because she had been the victim of a robbery and the perpetrator had been acquitted at trial. The
In support of his claim of discrimination in jury selection, Appellant reiterates that the prosecutor exercised seven peremptory strikes against six African Americans and one Hispanic, and struck no Caucasians. Specifically, he argues that the prosecutor‘s explanations for exercising these challenges against minority venirepersons were based on subjective considerations that were pre-textual, and could easily mask discriminatory intent. According to Appellant, the PCRA court erred in affording “absolute deference” to the trial court‘s acceptance of the race-neutral explanations for the strikes, “without ever making an independent determination of whether the trial court‘s findings were, in fact, based upon reliable and credible evidence.” Appellant‘s Brief at 67. He maintains that the PCRA court should have examined the proposed testimony of David Zuckerman, Esquire, who conducted an analysis of voter registration lists, as well as the proposed testimony of other attorneys who had observed the Philadelphia District Attorney‘s Office engage in a general policy of discrimination in jury selection. Finally, Appellant concludes that appellate counsel had no reasonable basis for failing to raise this claim on appeal because there was a record made at trial and, therefore, an evidentiary basis existed from which a Batson claim could have been reviewed on appeal.
Upon examination of Appellant‘s claim, we have little difficulty concluding that he failed to demonstrate appellate counsel‘s ineffectiveness. This Court has recently reaffirmed the notion that a “trial court‘s decision on the ultimate question of discriminatory intent represents a finding of fact of the sort accorded great deference on appeal and will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous.” Cook, 952 A.2d at 603, citing Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Such great deference is necessary because a reviewing court, which analyzes only the transcripts from voir dire, is not as well positioned as the trial court is to
Considering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court‘s decision on the ultimate question of discriminatory intent was clearly erroneous. The prosecutor‘s specific explanations were given moments after the peremptory strikes were exercised, and the trial court, who observed the demeanor of the prosecutor, made an express determination that the justifications for the peremptory strikes were both credible and race neutral. Each of the explanations offered refers to characteristics that relate to a prospective juror‘s ability to serve (i.e., the inability to understand the law, prior exposure to the criminal justice system; reluctance to impose the death penalty; the inability to respond appropriately to questions asked; and youth, indicating a possible inability to comprehend the seriousness of the penalty sought) See Id., 952 A.2d at 606 (recognizing that, to fulfill its obligation to rebut a prima facie case of discrimination in jury selection under Batson, the prosecution‘s explanation must be “clear and reasonably specific.“).
Further, Appellant recognizes that two African Americans served on the jury, and fails to identify any statements made by the prosecutor indicating a racial bias. See Id., at 607 (holding that circumstantial evidence, in addition to the prosecutor‘s explanation, may be probative in the ultimate determination of whether peremptory challenges were made for racial reasons); see also Commonwealth v. Spotz, 896 A.2d at 1213-14 (holding that, in evaluating a Batson claim alleging gender discrimination, a court may look to whether the prosecutor made any questionable remarks during jury selection). Finally, this Court has concluded that a general claim of a “culture of discrimination” in the Philadelphia District Attorney‘s Office is insufficient to demonstrate purposeful discrimination where the various assertions do not involve the prosecutor
Under these circumstances, it was eminently reasonable for appellate counsel to forego the meritless Batson issue in favor of the claims he pursued on direct appeal. See Commonwealth v. Clark, 599 Pa. 204, 961 A.2d 80, 93 (2008) (counsel cannot be deemed in effective for failing to raise a meritless claim). As we conclude that, even if believed, Appellant‘s proffer fails to demonstrate purposeful discrimination in jury selection, the PCRA court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the Batson claim. See
Accordingly, as we have concluded that all of Appellant‘s claims lack merit, we affirm the PCRA court‘s order denying him a new trial.
Chief Justice CASTILLE, and Justice EAKIN, Justice TODD, Justice McCAFFERY and Justice GREENSPAN join the opinion.
Justice SAYLOR files a dissenting opinion.
Justice SAYLOR, dissenting.
I join Parts I, II, III, and VIII of the majority opinion, but I have differences with the reasoning contained in the other parts, and I do not support the affirmance of the dismissal and/or denial of all guilt-phase claims at this stage. Rather, I would remand for an evidentiary hearing concerning material factual matters implicated by Appellant‘s proffers.
Pervading several of Appellant‘s claims is the allegation that his trial counsel conducted no investigation of guilt or penalty, but rather, focused his efforts on the extraction of fees from those concerned about Appellant. Appellant alleges that he always admitted to having fired the shot that killed the victim, albeit without any intention of harming anyone, but that trial counsel unilaterally staged the defense that Erica Riggins was the shooter. Appellant‘s proffer includes his own declaration, see, Declaration of Craig Williams at ¶ 9 (“I admitted to [trial counsel] that when I came around the corner and I saw Erica‘s car I was in a panic and fired the gun. I told [trial counsel] that I was not trying to hurt Mr. Pepper, Erica, or anyone else.“), as well as one from eyewitness Erica Riggins. See Declaration of Erica Riggins at ¶¶ 3-4 (indicating the witness told trial counsel that Appellant was the shooter and the killing was an accident). Ms. Riggins’ declaration also supports the claim of a lack of a meaningful investigation, as, for example, it includes the following narrative:
[Trial counsel] and I met several times before the trial started when I would come by and give him money for Craig‘s case. We would speak very briefly as I gave him the money. I told him I knew Craig was not guilty of murder because I was there and it was an accident. But then he would not ask me any questions about what really happened....
... From the time that I gave [trial counsel] money, I let him know that I wanted to testify for Craig, so I could explain what really happened. He would say that if I was
to be a witness, he couldn‘t be Craig‘s lawyer and would have to give the money back. But I wanted to be a witness and tell what I knew for Craig. [Trial counsel] kept telling me to just get him paid....
Declaration of Erica Riggins at ¶¶ 3-4.
Appellant offered a similar statement from his mother:
[Trial counsel] only wanted to talk about his fees and how Erica Riggins and Jean Hargrove were going to pay him several thousand dollars in addition to the $5,000 he had already received from them. He told me I should also pay him, because there was some kind of “conflict” with him getting all his money from them. It did not make sense to me. Later, I would try to visit [trial counsel] to find out about my son‘s case, but [counsel] would not be around when I went to his office. I only saw [him] on one or two occasions. He never sat down and interviewed me about my son. He only seemed to want to talk about getting more money than what, by then, had been several thousand dollars he had gotten from Erica and Jean.
Not once during any of my visits to [trial counsel‘s] office did he or anyone working with him speak to me about Craig‘s case.... He did not ask me anything about Craig or about the situation and fights between Erica and Jean or about Craig‘s life.
Declaration of Joyce Carter at ¶ 17. The declaration of Jean Hargrove includes the following:
I paid [trial counsel] and Erica Riggins paid him, so [trial counsel] knew how to reach us. But he never interviewed us about the case before trial. At one point, I told him he needed to interview Erica. He said that Erica had paid him so he did not want Erica involved. I told him he should at least interview me about what happened. He said he would do this later, but as time went by it became clear he never intended to interview me. He would not take my phone calls or give me an appointment.
Based on this line of information, Appellant argues, among other things:
It is believed and averred that when [trial counsel] was unable to squeeze anymore [sic] funds from Ms. Hargrove, Ms. Riggins or Appellant‘s family, he simply took the lines of least resistance. He raised a perfunctory defense, discussed below, which took the least amount of money, effort and work, rather than raising a real and appropriate defense which would have required his spending considerable time thoroughly interviewing all the witnesses well in advance of the trial, obtaining historical information and documentation about the Appellant and retaining experts. Counsel‘s only “tactic” was to avoid doing any work on this case in order to maximize the profit he ultimately received from the ever increasing fee that he was repeatedly asking his client‘s mother, Ms. Hargrove and Ms. Riggins to pay.
Brief for Appellant at 33.
Notably, it is also indisputable that, on facts the PCRA court and this Court were and are required to accept at the pre-hearing stage, Appellant was substantially underrepresented in his direct appeal, since his appellate counsel submitted a declaration indicating that he did not investigate any extra-record claims such as ineffectiveness matters. See Affidavit of Appellate Counsel, at ¶¶ 3-6.1
Notes
- MURDER OF THE FIRST DEGREE.--A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed by an intentional killing.
- MURDER OF THE SECOND DEGREE.--A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.
- MURDER OF THE THIRD DEGREE.--All other kinds of murder shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the third degree is a felony of the first degree.
- DEFINITIONS.--As used in this section the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection: “INTENTIONAL KILLING.” Killing by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing.
N.T. 6/16/1988 at 445.It is not the defendant‘s burden to prove that he is not guilty. Instead, it is the Commonwealth that always has the burden of proving each and every element of the crimes charged and that the defendant is guilty of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. A person accused of a crime is not required to present evidence in his own defense or to prove anything in his own defense. If the evidence that has been presented fails to meet the Commonwealth‘s burden, then your verdict must be not guilty.
N.T. 6/9/1988 at 284-285.I really have to make a credibility judgment and I make it here and I accept the statements that [the prosecutor] has made and I accept that these are the basis for the challenges that she has exercised and I accept that it has not been done for the purpose of excluding black persons from this jury and as a result I do not find any violation of the defendant‘s right or any violations of law....