J

- S34042

- 23

NON
- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
- SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DOMENIQUE JAMES LEWIS

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 9 WDA 2023 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 29, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at CP

- 02

- CR

- 0008184

- 2010

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and MURRAY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED: October 5, 2023
Domenique James Lewis (Appellant) appeals from the order dismissing

his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42
Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541

– 9546. We affirm.
In a prior decision, this Court set forth t he underlying facts and
procedural history:

At trial, Megan [Wilsher] testified that on February 26, 2010, while [Appellant , who was age 17, ] was sitting in her living room, he stood up, pulled out a gun, smiled a t her, and fired at her. [Wilsher] testified [Appellant] shot her in the face, and after she fell, he shot her again. Wilsher lost her right eye [ because of ] the shooting. In corroboration of this testimony, the Commonwealth presented evidence that [App ellant’s] fingerprints were found on a Coke can recovered from the scene.
Furthermore, the Commonwealth, through the testimony of Detective Scott Evans, introduced a recorded statement made by [Appellant] to police, inJ

- S34042

- 23

- 2

- which he admitted that on February 2 6, 2010, he had engaged in a struggle with Brett Quinn over a gun that discharged in the living room; he took the gun and fired at Quinn multiple times, chased him and took his chain and watch; returned to the house where he took $400 to $500 dollars from Wilsher ’ s purse, as well as her cellular phone; and then disposed of the gun.

Commonwealth v. Lewis , 358 WDA 2012, at 6

– 7 (Pa. Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum, citations omitted, brackets in original).
Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of one count of carrying a firearm without a license, and two counts each of the following crimes: criminal attempt

— murder, aggravated assault, and robbery. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of t hirty

- three and one

- half to sixty

- seven years [’] incarceration, and we affirmed his judgment of sentence. Id. Our Supreme Court denied further review. Commonwealth v. Lewis , 74 A.3d 1030 (Pa. 2013).
Appellant filed a timely PCRA petition, which was denied. On appeal, we sua sponte vacated and remanded for resentencing consistent with [ Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99 ( 2013) , because ] Appellant ’ s sentence included the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence. Upon remand, the trial court imposed the same aggregate sentence, albeit structured in a different manner. Appellant filed a post

- sentence motion, which was denied.

Commonwealth v. Lewi s , 175 A.3d 1065 (Pa. Super. 2017) (unpublished

memorandum at 1

- 2 )

. On August 10, 2017, this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence. Id.
In so doing, we rejected Appellant’s claim s that his sentence was manifestly

excessive and that his aggregate sentence violated the United States Supreme

Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460 (2012). Id. (unpublished

memorandum at 5

- 14 ). The Pennsylvania Supreme C ourt denied Appellant’sJ

- S34042

- 23

- 3

-

petition for leave to appeal. C ommonwealth v. Lewi s , 184 A.3d 150 (Pa.
2018).
On May 1, 2019, Appellant timely filed the instant PCRA petition. The
PCRA court appointed counsel , who filed an amended PCRA petition. On June
29, 2022, the PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss the petition without
a hearing. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Appellant filed a response. The PCRA court
dismissed the petition o n November 29, 2022 . Appe llant filed this timely
appeal

. 1
Appellant raises a single issue:
[Did t]he PCRA court err[] in denying relief where prior counsel [ 2 ] was ineffecti ve for failing to argue that the sentence imposed constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated [A ppellant’s] equal protection rights[?]
Appellant’s Brief at 4 (footnote added)

. We review the PCRA court’s denial of relief by “examining whether the
PCRA court’s findings of fact are supported by the record, and whether its
conclusions of law are free from legal error.” Commonwealth v. Busanet , 54 A.3d 35, 45 (Pa. 2012). “Our scope of review is limited to the findings of

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 The PCRA court did not order Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. On December 28, 2022, the court is sued an order adopting its Rule 907 notice in lieu of an opinion.

2 Attorneys from t he Allegheny Co unty Public Defender’s Office represented Appellant at resentencing and on direct appeal from resentencing.J

- S34042

- 23

- 4

-

the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable
to the party who prevailed in the PCRA court proceeding.” Id.
[T] he PCRA court has the discretion to dismiss a petition without a hearin g when the court is satisfied “that there are no genuine issues concerning any material fact, the defendant is not entitled to post

- conviction collateral relief, and no legitimate purpose would be served by any further proceedings.” “[T]o obtain reversal of a PCRA court’s decision to dismiss a petition without a hearing, an appellant must show that he raised a genuine issue of fact which, if resolved in his favor, would have entitled him to relief, or that the court otherwise abused its discretion in denyi ng a hearing.”

Commonwealth v. Hanible , 30 A.3d 426, 452 (Pa. 2011) (citations
omitted)

. Appellant claims that resentencing and appellate c ounsel w ere
ineffective

. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stat ed:

It is well

- settled that counsel is presumed to have been effective and that the petitioner bears the burden of proving counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness. Commonwealth v. Cooper , 941 A.2d 655, 664 (Pa. 2007). To overcome this presumption, a petitioner
mus t establish that: (1) the underlying substantive claim has arguable merit; (2) counsel did not have a reasonable basis for his or her act or omission; and (3) the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s deficient performance, “that is,
a rea sonable probability that but for counsel’s act or omission, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. A PCRA petitioner must address each of these prongs on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Natividad , 938 A.2d 310, 322 (Pa. 2007) (explaining that “appellants continue to bear the burden of pleading and proving each of the Pierce elements on appeal to this Court”). A petitioner’s failure to satisfy any prong of this test is fatal to the claim. Cooper , 941 A.2d at 664.

Commonwealth v. Wholaver , 177 A.3d 136, 144 (Pa. 2018) (citations
modified). “C ounsel cannot be found ineffective for failing to pursue aJ

- S34042

- 23

- 5

-

baseless or meritless claim.” Commonwealth v. Taylor , 933 A.2d 1035,
1042 (Pa. Super. 2007) (cita tion omitted). With respect to ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel, “ the petitioner must show that there is a
reasonable probability that the outcome of the direct appeal proceeding would
have been different but for counsel’s deficient performance

. ”
Commonwealth v. Blakeney , 108 A.3d 739, 750 (Pa. 2014).
Appellant first contends that resentencing and appellate counsel were
ineffective for failing to argue that Appellant’s sentence “constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment.” Appellant’s Brief at 13; see id. at 13

- 1 4. Appellant
cites, without explanation , Miller , supra , Montgomery v. Louisiana , 577
U.S. 190, 195 (2016), and Roper v. Simmons , 543 U.S. 551 (2005), to
support his claim. Id.

An individual’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment is a
nonwaivable challenge to the legality of the sentence. Commonwealth v.
Seskey , 86 A.3d 237, 241 (Pa. Super. 2014).
The Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality between t he crime committed and the sentence imposed; rather, it forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime.

In Commonwealth v. Spells , [ ] 612 A.2d 458, 462, 417 Pa. Super. 233 (1992) ( en banc ), this Court applied the three

pron g test for Eighth Amendment proportionality review set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Solem v. Helm , 463 U.S. 277, 103 S. Ct. 3001, 77 L. Ed. 2d 637[ ] (1983):
[A] court ’ s proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided b y objective criteria, including (i) the gravity of the offense and theJ

- S34042

- 23

- 6

- harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions

. Spells , 612 A.2d at 462 (quoting Solem , 463 U.S. at 292[ ] ). However, this Court is not obligated to reach the second and third prongs of the Spells test unless a threshold comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross disproportionality.

Commonwealth v. Lankford , 164 A.3d 1250, 1252

- 53 (Pa. Super. 2017)
(some citations and quotation marks omitte d).
Here, Appellant neither mentions nor discusses the Spells test. See
Appellant’s Brief at 13

- 14. Further, he does not meaningfully address any of
the three prongs necessary to establish an ineffectiveness claim under the

PCRA

. Wholaver , supra

. Appellant fail s to develop h is ineffectiveness claims
beyond the bald allegations set forth above. He present s no argument as to

whether counsel had a reasonable basis for not raising an Eighth Amendment

claim. A ppellant also fail s to demonstrate prejudice 3 resulting f rom counsel’s
allegedly deficient performance. 4 C laims of ineffective assistance of counsel

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

3 T his claim may be previously litigated.

4 We previously rejected Appellant’s challenge to his sentence as unreasonable and excessive:
First, a sentence that is within the standard range of the guidelines, let alone below the mitigated range [as in th is case ] , is generally viewed as appropriate under the Sente ncing Code. [ Commonwealth v. Moury , 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. Appellant’s only real complaint regarding the length of (Footnote Continued Next Page)J

- S34042

- 23

- 7

-

are not self

- proving. Commonwealth v. Wharton , 811 A.2d 978, 986 (Pa.
2002)

. Thus , Appellant has failed to establish that resentencing and appellate

counsel were ineffective. W e discern no error on the part of the PCRA court
in denying relief on this claim.
Appellant also argues resentencing and appellate counsel w ere ineffective for failing to argue that his sentence violated his equal protection
rights. Appe llant’s Brief at 14

- 15. Appellant’s argument consists of five

sentences without citation to pertinent au thority

. He again fails to discuss or develop the ineffectiveness prongs. Thus , Appellant’s ineffectiveness claim

fails. See Commonwealth v. Rolan , 964 A.2d 398, 406 (Pa. Super. 2008)

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ his sentence is [his claim that the sentence violated] Miller [] , which we have rejected, in conjunction with an argument th at “[a] sentence for third

- degree homicide could be shorter than the sentence [Appellant] received.” Appellant’s brief at 29. This point diminishes the nature of Appellant’s crimes. Third

- degree homicide, unlike attempted murder, is not a specific

- inten t crime. Appellant was found to have intended to kill both victims. He twice shot a woman who had invited him into her home, for apparently no reason whatsoever. He chased his friend, who had accompanied him to the victim’s home, and tried to kill him as well. These brutal acts justified a lengthy sentence, and Appellant, who managed to amass a prior record score of five by age seventeen, failed to convince the court that a lesser sentence was warranted. After review of the four 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(d) fac tors, we uphold that sentence, and we, therefore, find no abuse of discretion.

Commonwealth v. Lewis , 175 A.3d 1065 (unpublished memorandum at 13

- 14 )

.J

- S34042

- 23

- 8

-

(where appellant fails to prove any one prong of the ineffectiveness test, he
does not meet his burden, and counsel is deemed constitutionally effective)

. Appellant’s claims of counsel s ’ ineffectiveness lack merit. As such, the
PCRA court did not err in dismissing Appellant’s PCRA petition. Hanible , 30

A.3d at 452

. Order affirmed.

10/5/2023