Opinion ID: 768203
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lines' Direct Appeal

Text: 44 As noted above, Lines raised the following substantive issues in his direct appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court: 45 1. Did the attorney for the Commonwealth, in his closing presentation, continuously express his personal opinions of the evidence so as to deprive the appellant of a fair trial? 46 2. Did the Commonwealth commit prosecutorial misconduct in failing to disclose exculpatory evidence concerning its star witness, failing to comply with discovery rules, and failing to correct perjured testimony of the star witness, thus requiring a new trial? 47 3. Was the Defendant-Appellant denied effective assistance of counsel when defense counsel allowed the admittance of hearsay statements without objection, failed to properly prepare for trial and conduct an independent defense investigation, failed to utilize character witness testimony, and failed to develop and present a coherent and cogent theory of defense? 48 Appellant's Brief to the Superior Court at 2. After the Superior Court dismissed Lines' appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania's fugitive forfeiture rule, Lines filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in which he challenged only the Superior Court's application of the forfeiture rule. His Petition for Allowance of Appeal stated the following two grounds for relief under the heading, QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW: 49 1. Did the trial court have the discretion to hear the post-trial motions of a defendant who was briefly absent during the pendency of post-trial motions but who was present for all the hearings on the post-trial motions? 50 2. Is a defendant who was a fugitive for a brief time during the pendency of his post-trial motions but present throughout all post-trial hearings and the appeal process, forever barred from appellate review? 51 In the section of the Petition captioned: CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE CASE, Lines outlined the circumstances of his flight during jury deliberations, his subsequent apprehension, the Commonwealth's Motion to Quash based upon his fugitive status, and the trial court's decision on the merits of his post-verdict claims. In doing so, he stated that he had asked the [trial] Court to review the three substantive grounds set forth above, and he reiterated each of those claims. 10 However, in the seven and one-half pages in which he set forth his CONCISE STATEMENT OF REASONS RELIED UPON FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL, Lines presented only his challenge to the Superior Court's application of the fugitive forfeiture rule. He did not set forth any of the substantive claims he had relied upon in his brief to the Superior Court, nor did he discuss his underlying claims at any point in his Petition for Allowance of Appeal. 11 52 Rule 1115(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure 12 prescribes the proper method for presenting an issue to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. It states that a Petition for Allowance of Appeal must contain, inter alia: 53 (3) The questions presented for review. . . . The statement of questions presented will be deemed to include every subsidiary question fairly comprised therein. Only the questions set forth in the opinion, or fairly comprised therein, will ordinarily be considered by the court in the event an appeal is allowed. . . . 54 (5) A concise statement of the reasons relied on for allowance of an appeal. (emphasis added). 13 Rule 1115(c) provides: 55 All contentions in support of a petition for allowance of appeal shall be set forth in the body of the petition as provided by Paragraph (a)(5) of this rule. Neither the briefs below nor any separate brief in support of a petition for allowance of appeal will be received, and the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court will refuse to file any petition for allowance of appeal to which is annexed or appended any brief below or supporting brief. Finally, Rule 1115(d) provides as follows: 56 The failure of a petitioner to present with accuracy, brevity, and clearness whatever is essential to a ready and adequate understanding of the points requiring consideration will be a sufficient reason for denying the petition. 57 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court strictly adheres to the letter of these rules and will not address claims that are not properly asserted in a Petition for Allowance of Appeal. Commonwealth v. Rush, 522 Pa. 379, 386-387, 562 A.2d 285, 288 (1989), and cases cited therein. The Court has also emphasized that all claims appellant wishes to raise must be set out in his brief and not merely incorporated by reference. Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 535 Pa. 210, 238 n.3, 634 A.2d 1078, 1092 n.3 (1993). See also Rule 2116(a). 58 As noted above, Lines challenged only the Superior Court's application of the fugitive forfeiture rule in the appropriate section of his Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The trial court's opinion denying Lines' post-trial motions (which include the questions raised in the Superior Court) was appended to the petition, along with Superior Court's opinion. In addition, Lines' Statement of the Case in his Petition for Allowance of Appeal listed the questions raised in the Superior Court. However, Lines did not attempt to incorporate the issues discussed by the trial court by reference or otherwise, and the trial court's opinion does not fully state the substance of Lines' legal argument. Furthermore, it is clear that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would not have addressed Lines' substantive claims if he had merely attempted to incorporate them by reference. See Edmiston, 535 Pa. at 238 n.3 (Appellant also `incorporates by reference' claims in his post-trial motions as though set forth in his brief at length and requests this court to consider them in terms of ineffectiveness of trial counsel. We refuse to do so in that all claims appellant wishes us to consider must be set out in his brief and not merely incorporated by reference). 59 We therefore, conclude that Lines did not fairly present to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court any of the claims he raised on direct appeal.