J-S84009-16

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

KYREE SLOCUM,

Appellant No. 180 EDA 2016

Appeal from the PCRA Order of December 11, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0010405-2009

BEFORE: OLSON, SOLANO and FITZGERALD,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED January 12, 2017

Appellant, Kyree Slocum, appeals pro se from the order entered on 

December 11, 2015, which dismissed his petition filed pursuant to the Post 

Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

The PCRA court has provided this Court with an able and well-written 

summary of the underlying facts and procedural posture of this appeal. As 

the PCRA court explained:

On the evening of October 28, 2008, Barry Johnson 

[(hereinafter “victim Johnson”)] and Reubin Eason 

[(hereinafter “victim Eason”)] each sustained fatal gunshot 

wounds near the 2300 block of North Marshall Street in 

Philadelphia. In the hours leading up to the shooting, victim 

Johnson was with[:] his cousin, Travis Johnson[;] . . . a 

friend, Roscoe Hall[;] and[,] Hall’s cousin, Chris Johnson. 

The men spent the day driving throughout Philadelphia in 

Hall’s Ford Excursion. . . .

After dinner, the men dropped victim Johnson off at 

[Appellant’s] home and left. Victim Johnson’s cousin, David 
J-S84009-16

- 2 -

Beatty [(hereinafter “Beatty”)], . . . victim Eason[,] and 

[Appellant] were all at [Appellant’s] home when victim 

Johnson arrived. While at [Appellant’s] home, victim 

Johnson, victim Eason, Beatty, and [Appellant] prepared 

bulk quantities of drugs for individual sale. While the men 

were finished breaking down the drugs, Beatty left 

[Appellant’s] home for a short time in order to deposit the 

drugs in a nearby “stash house.” Victim Eason also briefly 

left [Appellant’s] home. At approximately this point, Travis 

Johnson, Chris Johnson, and Roscoe Hall returned in the 

Excursion to [Appellant’s] home to pick up victim Johnson.

Upon arriving at [Appellant’s] home, Hall briefly entered and 

asked [Appellant] to tell victim Johnson that his cousins 

were waiting for him outside in the parked car. 

Approximately five to ten minutes later, victim Johnson 

exited [Appellant’s] home and approached the Excursion. 

Meanwhile, victim Eason and Beatty returned from their 

respective outings and met on the sidewalk in front of 

[Appellant’s] house, just several feet from the parked 

Excursion which had Travis Johnson, Chris Johnson, and 

Hall inside. [Appellant] then exited his home, approached 

the Excursion, and peered inside. Victim Johnson and 

[Appellant] then had a brief conversation which culminated 

in [Appellant] exclaiming, “this shit is fucked up!” 

[Appellant] then briefly went back inside his home, 

return[ed] with a .40 caliber Smith and Wesson firearm[, 

and] fired numerous times at both victims as well as at the 

men in the Excursion.

The three men in the car saw victim Eason and victim 

Johnson fall to the ground; the two had sustained gunshot 

wounds. Victim Johnson suffered a single, fatal gunshot 

wound to the head. Victim Eason suffered three gunshot 

wounds, including a fatal shot to the head. Finally, 

Christopher Johnson suffered a single, non-fatal gunshot 

wound to the back as he was fleeing from [Appellant].

Having heard the gunshots, a nearby resident called police 

when he found an unidentified gun in his backyard. At trial, 

Beatty confirmed that this was the .40 caliber Smith and 

Wesson weapon he knew [belonged to Appellant]. 

Investigators found [11] fired cartridge cases on the 2300 

block of North Marshall Street, all of which matched the gun 
J-S84009-16

- 3 -

that was recovered. [Appellant] fled and was eventually 

located in Egypt and, on June 18, 2009, [Appellant] was 

brought back to Philadelphia.

. . .

On May 25, 2011, following a capital jury trial[, Appellant] 

was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder [], one 

count of attempted murder [], and one count of possessing 

instruments of crime[].[1] On May 26, 2011, at the 

conclusion of the penalty phase, the jury returned a 

sentence of life on each first-degree murder charge. [The 

trial court] then imposed those mandatory sentences on 

[Appellant].

. . . [Appellant] filed a timely notice of appeal to the 

Superior Court. On June 19, 2012, the Superior Court 

affirmed [Appellant’s] judgment of sentence, and on 

October 31, 2013, our Supreme Court denied [Appellant’s] 

petition for allowance of appeal.

[Appellant] filed a pro se PCRA petition on February 4, 

2013. Counsel was appointed[] and [appointed counsel 

petitioned for permission to withdraw pursuant to 

Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and 

Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 

1988) (en banc)]. Having reviewed the pleadings and 

conducted an independent review, [on August 28, 2015, the 

PCRA] court sent [Appellant] notice of its intent to dismiss 

[Appellant’s] PCRA petition without a hearing pursuant to 

[Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure] 907. . . . On 

September 8, 2015, [Appellant] filed a request for an 

extension of time to respond to [the] court’s [Rule] 907 

notice, which [the PCRA] court granted. [Appellant] 

responded on November 17, 2015. Having reviewed 

[Appellant’s] response, [the PCRA] court nevertheless 

dismissed [Appellant’s] PCRA petition on December 11, 

2015, and permitted counsel to withdraw. 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 901, and 907, respectively.
J-S84009-16

- 4 -

PCRA Court Opinion, 5/4/16, at 1-4 (internal citations and footnotes 

omitted) (some internal capitalization omitted).

Appellant filed a timely, pro se notice of appeal and now raises the 

following claims to this Court:

1) [The PCRA] court erred in accepting PCRA counsel’s nomerit letter, and PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to 

go beyond the claims presented and conduct an extrarecord investigation.

2) PCRA counsel was ineffective in failing to advance 

[Appellant’s] claim that trial counsel failed to meaningfully 

consult with him prior to trial. [The PCRA] court erred in 

accepting PCRA counsel’s assertion of no merit with respect 

to this claim.

3) PCRA counsel was ineffective in failing to better articulate 

the claim [Appellant] presented for review regarding David 

Beatty. [The PCRA] court erred in accepting PCRA counsel’s 

no merit letter.

4) PCRA counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate the 

law governing [Appellant’s] claims and better articulate 

[Appellant’s] claims regarding Detective Ronald Dove. [The 

PCRA] court erred in accepting PCRA counsel’s no merit 

letter.

Appellant’s Brief at 6.

We reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified 

record, the notes of testimony, and the opinion of the able PCRA court 

judge, the Honorable M. Theresa Sarmina. We conclude that there has been 

no error in this case and that Judge Sarmina’s opinion, entered on May 4, 

2016, meticulously and accurately disposes of Appellant’s issues on appeal. 

Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge Sarmina’s opinion and adopt it as 
J-S84009-16

- 5 -

our own. In any future filings with this or any other court addressing this 

ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of the PCRA court opinion.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/12/2017