Case Title: Commonwealth v. D'Amato (Per Curiam Order)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2005-03-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-171-2002] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. JOSEPH D'AMATO, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : No. 332 CAP Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County entered on 2/14/01 dismissing PCRA petition at Nos. 1994-1997 December Term 1981 SUBMITTED: August 21, 2002 OPINION PER CURIAM DECIDED: March 29, 2005 This Court remanded the matter for a hearing concerning a claim of after- discovered evidence, see Commonwealth v. D’Amato, ___ Pa. ___, ___, 856 A.2d 806, 826 (2004), and the record is now complete: the common pleas court held a hearing, at which Mr. Boyle refused to testify, invoking his privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.1 Thereafter, the court filed a supplemental opinion containing an express determination that, viewing the trial record as a whole, any testimony from Mr. Boyle would not have changed the outcome of the proceedings. As 1 See U.S. CONST. amend. V (“No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . ..”). This provision applies to state proceedings under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 6, 84 S. Ct. 1489, 1492 (1964); Commonwealth v. McGrath, 508 Pa. 250, 259, 495 A.2d 517, 521 (1985). [J-171-2002] - 2 we do not find this determination to be erroneous, Appellant cannot establish an entitlement to relief on this claim. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Court of Common Pleas denying Appellant’s petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§9541-9546. The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court is directed to transmit the record of this case to the Governor of Pennsylvania in a timely fashion.