Case Title: Commonwealth v. Shawnfatee Bridges, Aplt (Concurring Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2005-11-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-218-2004] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT CAPPY, C.J., CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, JJ. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. SHAWNFATEE BRIDGES, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : No. 450 CAP Appeal from the Order entered on May 19, 2004, denying PCRA relief in the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Berks County at No. 117-97 SUBMITTED: December 13, 2004 CONCURRING OPINION MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CAPPY DECIDED: November 28, 2005 I join the Majority in all respects save for its conclusion that Appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the admissibility of Robles’ testimony was previously litigated. Maj. Op. at pp. 5-6. In my view, this issue was not previously litigated in accord with this court’s jurisprudence. “An issue has been previously litigated if ‘the highest appellate court in which the petitioner could have had review as a matter of right has ruled on the merits of the issue.’” Commonwealth v. Robinson, 877 A.2d 433, 438 (Pa. 2005), quoting 42 Pa.C.S. §9544(a)(2) (emphasis supplied). The pertinent passage from our decision in the direct appeal bears repeating: On appeal, Appellant objects to the admission of testimony by Commonwealth witness George Robles (Robles). Appellant claims that it was error to permit Robles to testify to additional matters not contained in discovery material. Specifically, Appellant claims that prior to the offer of [J-218-2004, Eastern, 2005] - 2 proof made on January 29, 1998, immediately preceding Robles’ testimony, Robles had told no one that he saw the Appellant pull a black Glock 9 mm. handgun from his waistband on December 8, 1996 and waive it around Robles’ house .… No abuse of discretion occurred in this matter because, after the offer of proof, Appellant made no objection to the admissibility of this evidence. Moreover, Appellant has established no prejudice arising from the admission of the evidence and we likewise see none. Finally, we note that defense counsel fully cross-examined Robles regarding new allegations by Robles, extensively exploring the issue of recent fabrication on the part of Robles. Commonwealth v. Bridges, 757 A.2d 859, 874 (Pa. 2000). The Majority concludes that the issue was previously litigated because, on direct appeal, this court determined that not only had the issue been waived, but also that Robles’ testimony was admissible because Appellant suffered no prejudice from its admission. (Maj. Op. at p. 6). Contrary to the Majority, I do not believe that our opinion on direct appeal ruled on the merits of whether Robles’ testimony was admissible.1 I, therefore, disagree that the issue was previously litigated. My differences with the Majority’s approach, however, do not operate to revive Appellant’s ineffectiveness claim. A review of the Amended PCRA petition reveals that Appellant waived his claim for failing to develop it in conformance with our well-established precedent. See e.g., Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987)(requiring a PCRA petitioner to demonstrate all three prongs of the ineffectiveness test). Mr. Justice Nigro joins this concurring opinion. 1 The PCRA court below noted in its opinion, “[h]owever, because counsel did not object to the testimony, the PA Supreme Court did not reach the merits of the issue, but did find the defendant was not prejudiced by the admission of the evidence.” PCRA Ct. Op. at p.5, n.2.