J-S40024-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ATIBA WICKER 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2933 EDA 2022

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 6, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002843-2012

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ATIBA WICKER 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2934 EDA 2022

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 6, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002844-2012

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ATIBA WICKER 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2936 EDA 2022

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 6, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002845-2012
J-S40024-23

- 2 -

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., SULLIVAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED MAY 7, 2024

Atiba Wicker (“Wicker”) appeals pro se from the order dismissing his 

serial petition for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 We 

dismiss the appeal.

This Court has previously summarized the facts of this case as follows:

Philadelphia Police Officer Tamike Reid testified that, at 

approximately 7:45 p.m. on October 2, 2011, she was driving to 

work . . . when she observed four males standing outside La Pearl 

Bar, located at 54th Street and Haverford Avenue in . . . 

Philadelphia. As she approached, she observed a taller male, she 

described as appearing to be the “bouncer or security” strike 

another shorter male. She pulled to the corner and observed the 

shorter male get into a black Mercedes and drive away. [Officer 

Reid] . . . [did not] take further action because she was not in full 

uniform and had no radio to call for backup.

Later, while on duty, [Officer Reid] heard a citywide high 

priority radio call announcing, “Cars stand by, 19th District, 54th 

and Haverford, report of a shooting at La Pearl Lounge.” She 

immediately drove to La Pearl . . . reported her earlier observations 

to the assigned detective[,] and later in the evening gave him a 

detailed statement of her observations.

Philadelphia Police Detective Robert Daly testified . . . at 

approximately 8:30 p.m. he was assigned as the lead investigator 

to investigate the shooting at La Pearl. On arriving there at 

approximately 9:00 p.m.[,] he immediately noticed fired cartridge 

casings on the ground and bullet holes in the front door. Detective 

Daly . . . interviewed and took photographs of Mr. Alvin Chandler 

[(“Mr. Chandler”)] who had been injured by flying glass. He 

testified that Mr. Chandler told him he was at the door at the time 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S40024-23

- 3 -

of the shooting but was unable to give him a description of the 

shooter.

After completing his initial investigation at La Pearl, 

Detective Daly [went] to the Hospital of the University of 

Pennsylvania to interview the other two victims of the shooting, 

Ms. Keisha Beckles [(“Ms. Beckles”) and Mr. James Rice [(“Mr. 

Rice”)]. He described Ms. Beckles injuries as . . . a large gash 

across her upper lip and out the side . . .. After interviewing Ms. 

Beckles, [Detective Daly] next interviewed Mr. Rice . . .. He 

described Mr. Rice's room as having an open door and filled with 

his friends. He took a brief statement from Mr. Rice in which he 

told Detective Daly that he had seen the shooter but gave no 

description.

Detective Daly returned to the Hospital the next day with a 

photo array he had compiled from information gathered as a result 

of his investigation. This array did not contain a photograph of 

[Wicker]. Although Mr. Rice was unable to identify anyone from 

the array, he . . . told Detective Daly that, “Yeah, I'll be able to 

I.D. him.”

As the investigation continued, Detective Daly maintained 

contact with Mr. Rice, who refused to come into the offices of 

Southwest Detectives, because “he was very apprehensive . . ..” 

On October 25, 2011[,] Detective Daly eventually got Mr. Rice to 

meet with him at Central Detective Division because it has an 

underground entrance . . .. At this meeting, using the description 

of the shooter given to him by Mr. Rice, Detective Daly created a 

large computer[-]generated photo array. Mr. Rice identified the 

photograph of one individual, not [Wicker], as looking like the 

shooter but was certain the person was not the shooter.

Detective Daly testified that on November 6, 2011, he 

received a phone call from Mr. Rice saying, “the boy that shot me 

just called me” from a blocked caller I.D. number. On November 

10, 2011, after spending several days tracing the call back through 

Mr. Rice's phone carrier, Detective Daly recovered the blocked 

number and called it, reaching Ms. Jacquetta Rouse. She told him 

that on November 6[th] she had been on a date with [Wicker], 

whom she just knew as “T,” but was unaware of any phone call 

made to Mr. Rice. She also gave Detective Daly [Wicker’s] phone 

number. Based on the information he received from Ms. Rouse, 

Detective Daly, was able to identify [Wicker] and prepared a photo 
J-S40024-23

- 4 -

array containing [Wicker’s] photo. On November 11, 2011, he 

displayed the array to Mr. Rice, who immediately identified 

[Wicker] as the shooter.

Mr. [] Rice testified that on, Sunday, October 2, 2011, he 

was employed at La Pearl Bar . . . providing security at the front 

door.

[Mr. Rice] testified that between approximately 7:30 to 7:45 

p.m. [Wicker] threw a drink on one of the dancers in the 

establishment. On seeing this, he walked over to [Wicker] saying 

to him, “Come on outside. Let me talk to you for a minute.” After 

going outside[,] [Wicker] appeared to be receptive to Mr. Rice's 

concerns when another patron, Julius Faison [(“Faison”)], came 

outside. Faison engaged [Wicker] in an argument over the drink 

having spilled on him as well. The verbal argument soon led to an 

exchange of blows between the two of them. [Wicker] then went 

to his car and drove off.

Mr. Rice testified that approximately thirty to forty minutes 

later [Wicker] returned with a gun and asked Mr. Rice, “Where did 

that guy go?” Being preoccupied, [Mr. Rice] responded, “He's not 

here. Give me a second.” When others noticed the gun, Mr. Rice 

got everyone inside the bar and closed the door behind him. 

Seconds after closing the door, Mr. Rice heard gunshots and was 

struck in the back by a bullet. He also testified that two other 

people were injured as a result of the shooting.

Mr. Rice was then driven to the hospital in a police car for 

treatment. After receiving treatment, Mr. Rice testified he gave a 

statement to the investigating detective.

When asked on direct examination why the statement he 

made to Detective Daly in the hospital differed from his testimony 

at trial[,] he responded, because “there was probably people inside 

the hospital with me, and I'm not going to be talking to the police.” 

When asked why he would not meet with Detective Daly in his 

offices at 55th and Pine Streets, Mr. Rice replied, “It's my 

neighborhood. I wasn't going. I would have never went there.” He 

also testified that he had pointedly refused Detective Daly's 

request to meet him in his office.

Mr. Rice testified that on November 6, 2011, he received a 

phone call at approximately 2:30 p.m. from a blocked phone 
J-S40024-23

- 5 -

number. The first voice he heard was a female voice followed by 

a male voice who identified himself “T” or “D,” “[t]he person that 

shot you” who then said, “Don't worry about it I'll cut you a check.”

Mr. Rice immediately called Detective Daly to report this call. 

Subsequently, on November 11, 2011, he met with Detective Daly 

who showed him a photo array from which he identified [Wicker's]

picture.

Ms. Jacquetta Rouse testified that shortly after being on a 

date with [Wicker][,] she received a phone call from detectives 

inquiring about [Wicker] and his use of her cell phone. She told 

them that at the time she only knew [Wicker] as “T” and gave them 

his phone number. She further testified that she was not aware 

that [Wicker ] had used her phone nor did she know Mr. Rice. She 

also testified that [Wicker] later admitted to her that he had used 

her phone because he had something he wanted to straighten out.

Ms. Nicole Cooper testified that [Wicker] has been her 

boyfriend since 2009. She also testified that on the evening of 

October 2, 2011, she encountered [Wicker] at La Pearl and got into 

a heated argument, each upset that the other was there. After the 

argument [Wicker] walked away and she didn't see him until later 

that night. When asked about the shooting[,] she testified, 

“[S]omething did happen while I was there because I ran out.” “I 

didn't see anyone get shot.”

FBI Special Agent William Shute . . . currently assigned to 

the FBI's Cellular Analysis Survey Team, was qualified, without 

objection, as an expert in the field of historical cell site analysis. 

Analyzing [Wicker’s] cell phone usage records, Agent Shute 

testified that, on October 2, 2011: 1) at 6:41 p.m., [Wicker’s] cell 

phone was located in the vicinity of 11th and Spring Garden 

Streets . . . east of La Pearl; 2) at 7:07 p.m., usage of the phone 

began to move; 3) at 7:29 p.m., [the phone was] in the immediate 

vicinity of La Pearl; 4) at 7:46 p.m. the phone [was] on the move 

away from La Pearl heading in the westerly direction; 5) at 8:20 

p.m, [the phone was] in the vicinity of Cobbs Creek Parkway and 

Walnut Street, west of La Pearl; 6) at 8:27 p.m., [the phone was] 

in the vicinity of 63rd Street and Lebanon Avenue, west and north 

of La Pearl; and 7) at 8:40 p.m., [the phone was] in the vicinity 

of Fairmount Park, east of La Pearl. Agent Shute also testified 

that there were no calls logged on [Wicker’s] phone between 8:27 

to 8:40 . . .. He further testified that the route between the cell 
J-S40024-23

- 6 -

sites of these two calls[] would have taken [Wicker] through three 

cell towers, one of which is located in the vicinity of La Pearl. The 

usage records indicate that [Wicker] travelled directly back to his 

starting point at 11th and Girard from the location of the 8:40 call.

See Commonwealth v. Wicker, 2015 WL 6696906 (Pa. Super, August 13, 

2015), citing Trial Court Opinion, 9/16/14, at 5-11.

Wicker’s first trial ended in a mistrial. In June 2013, a jury convicted 

Wicker of three counts of aggravated assault, and recklessly endangering 

another person (“REAP”), and the trial court then convicted him of persons 

not to possess a firearm. In December 2013, the trial court imposed an 

aggregate sentence of thirty-one to seventy-two years of imprisonment. This 

Court affirmed Wicker’s judgment of sentence. See Wicker, 2015 WL 

6696906. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal. See 

Commonwealth v. Wicker, 130 A.3d 1290 (Pa. 2006).

Wicker filed a first PCRA petition pro se in 2016, and the court appointed 

counsel, who filed an amended PCRA petition in 2017. The court denied relief 

in 2018, and Wicker appealed. This Court quashed Wicker’s appeal pursuant 

to Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), because Wicker 

filed one notice of appeal from three separate dockets. See Commonwealth 

v. Wicker, No. 2244 EDA 2018 (Pa. Super. 2019) (unpublished judgment 

order). The Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on Marh 24, 2020. 

See Commonwealth v. Wicker, No. 518 EAL 2019 (Pa. 2020).

In December 2021, Wicker filed a pro se PCRA petition and 

accompanying memorandum of law, in which he alleged the existence of
J-S40024-23

- 7 -

newly-discovered evidence concerning Detective Michael DeRose, Officer 

Daniel Mason, and Detective Freddie Mole. See Wicker’s PCRA Petition, 

12/21/21, at 3; Wicker’s Memorandum of Law at 2-6. In April 2022, the 

Commonwealth filed a response asserting Wicker failed to specify the 

misconduct Officer Mason or Detective DeRose allegedly committed, and his 

allegation that Detective Mole fabricated, in a warrant application, a 

statement from Wicker’s girlfriend that he kept a firearm in her bedroom,

even if regarded as misleading,2 could not have affected the trial result. See 

Commonwealth’s Letter, 4/7/22, at 10-12. Wicker filed a response on August 

30, 2022. 

On September 12, 2022, the PCRA court issued a notice of intent to 

dismiss the petition pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 907. Wicker filed a response. On 

October 6, 2022, the PCRA court dismissed the petition. Wicker filed a timely 

appeal and he and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Before reaching the merits of Wicker’s issues, we must consider 

whether the defects in his brief require dismissal of the appeal. Appellate 

briefs must conform materially to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules 

of Appellate Procedure (“Pa.R.A.P.”), and this Court may dismiss an appeal if 

the defects in the brief are substantial. See Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 

____________________________________________

2 Wicker claimed the detective perjured himself by stating Ms. Cooper said 

Wicker had a black revolver in her bedroom when she told the detective Wicker 

had a black revolver “either on him or . . . at my house.” See Wicker’s 

Memorandum of Law, 12/21/21, at 4.
J-S40024-23

- 8 -

160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa. Super. 2017). “Although this Court is willing to 

construe liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, a pro se appellant enjoys 

no special benefit. Accordingly, pro se litigants must comply with the 

procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court.” Id.

(citation omitted). It is an appellant’s duty to present arguments that are 

sufficiently developed for our review. An appellate brief must support its 

claims with pertinent discussion, references to the record, and citations to 

legal authorities. See Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. 

Super. 2007). “This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop 

arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Id. If a deficient brief hinders this 

Court’s ability to address any issue on review, the issue will be regarded as 

waived. See Commonwealth v. Gould, 912 A.2d 869, 873 (Pa. Super. 

2006) (holding an appellant’s failure to support his claim with factual 

background and citations to the record represented “serious deviations from 

the briefing requirements of the Rules of Appellate Procedure,” waiving 

review of the claim) (citation omitted).

Wicker’s brief fails to comply with multiple rules of appellate procedure. 

It does not contain: a statement of jurisdiction (see Pa.R.A.P. 2114), a 

statement of order or other determination in question (see Pa.R.A.P. 2115), 

a statement of both the scope of review and the standard of review (see 

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3)), a statement of the questions involved (see Pa.R.A.P. 

2111(4), a statement of the case (see Pa.R.A.P. 2117), or a summary of 
J-S40024-23

- 9 -

argument (see Pa.R.A.P. 2118). Of even greater importance, Wicker’s brief 

is devoid of any references to or discussion of applicable legal standards, and 

statutes. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (providing the argument shall be followed by 

the discussion and citation of pertinent authorities). Nor does Wicker’s brief 

direct this Court to the places in the record where the matters he refers to can 

be found. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c) (providing where the argument references 

evidence or other matter, it must set forth a reference to the place in the 

record where that matter may be found); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(d) (providing that 

where a finding of fact is argued, the argument must contain a synopsis of all 

evidence on the point, with a reference to the place in the record where the 

evidence may be found). 

Given these deficiencies, this Court is unable to meaningfully review the 

issues Wicker purports to raise. Accordingly, Wicker’s failure to conform with 

our appellate rules compels the dismissal of the appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 

(providing that “if the defects . . . in the brief . . . are substantial, the appeal 

. . . may be . . . dismissed”).3

____________________________________________

3 To the extent Wicker asserts he pled newly-discovered facts concerning 

police misconduct below pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii), meriting 

an after-discovered-evidence analysis under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(vi), 

no relief would be due. As the PCRA court explained, Wicker does not explain 

what role, if any, Officer Mason and Detective DeRose played at his trial, and 

his assertion of Detective Mole’s misconduct, even if true, would not likely 

produce a different trial result given an eyewitness’s identification of Wicker 

and cellphone evidence placing him at the scene of the crime. See PCRA 

Court Opinion, 4/18/23, at unnumbered 7-10, citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S40024-23

- 10 -

Appeal dismissed.

Date: 5/7/2024

____________________________________________

9543(a)(2)(vi); Commonwealth v. Randolph, 873 A.2d 1277, 1283 (Pa. 

2005).