Court Opinion

ID: 9940108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 17:12:29.055309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:42:05.455729
License: Public Domain

J-S41029-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :          PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  WILLIAM DARWIN THOMPSON                      :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :     No. 111 WDA 2023

          Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 21, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Criminal Division at No(s):
                         CP-07-CR-0001230-2003

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                           FILED: FEBRUARY 13, 2024

       Appellant, William Darwin Thompson, appeals from the order entered

on December 21, 2022, dismissing his first petition filed pursuant to the Post

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

       We briefly summarize the facts and procedural history of this case as

follows.    “[F]ollowing a jury trial [on May 4, 2007, the jury] convicted

Appellant of two counts of second[-]degree (felony) murder [and one count

each of] robbery, aggravated assault, theft by unlawful taking and receiving

stolen property for his involvement in the robbery and brutal murder of

Raymond and Marjorie Bracken in their home on March 19, 2002.”

Commonwealth v. Thompson, 23 A.3d 586, at *1 (Pa. Super. 2010)

(unpublished memorandum). On June 26, 2007, the trial court imposed two

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S41029-23

consecutive terms of life imprisonment for the two counts of second-degree

murder with an additional consecutive term of 20 to 40 years of incarceration

for robbery. We affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence in an unpublished

memorandum on December 17, 2010.                 Id.   On September 14, 2011, our

Supreme Court denied further review. See Commonwealth v. Thompson,

29 A.3d 797 (Pa. 2011). On October 18, 2011, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA

petition. On October 31, 2011, the PCRA court appointed counsel to represent

Appellant. Following the appointment of new counsel and the filing of various

amended PCRA petitions, the PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing on May

29, 2018. In an opinion and order entered on December 21, 2022, the PCRA

court denied relief and this timely appeal resulted.1

       On appeal, Appellant presents the following issues2 for our review:
____________________________________________

1   Hiram A. Carpenter, III, the PCRA court judge who authored the opinion
and order denying relief on Appellant’s claims for collateral relief, has now
retired. On January 18, 2023, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Thereafter, we received a letter from the Blair County Court of Common Pleas
President Judge Elizabeth A. Doyle notifying this Court that the case was now
reassigned to her and she intended to rely on Judge Carpenter’s December
21, 2022 opinion instead of filing an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
As such, the PCRA court did not order Appellant to file a concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

2  We note that Appellant originally presented two additional issues to the
PCRA court that were later withdrawn. See PCRA Court Opinion, 12/21/2022,
at 4 and 16. Thus, we conclude that Appellant abandoned his ineffective
assistance of counsel claims pertaining to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 and chain of
custody and find them waived. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d
915, 924 (Pa. 2009) (citation omitted) (“[W]here an appellate brief fails to
provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to
develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -2-
J-S41029-23

       A. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object [or]
          otherwise challenge the Commonwealth’s failure to disclose the
          plea offer made to witness Stephen Espenlaub?

       B. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly
          challenge the credibility of witness Nicole Allhouse?

       C. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly
          challenge the autopsy report?

       D. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to be capital
          qualified at the time of trial?

       E. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly
          challenge scientific evidence offered against [Appellant]?

       F. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly
          challenge [or] object to the admission of unreliable DNA
          evidence?

       G. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to tell
          [Appellant] he could be convicted as an accomplice?

       H. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly
          cross[-]examine Commonwealth witnesses [to elicit] the
          Commonwealth’s efforts to coerce them into testifying falsely,
          and failing to preserve it for appellate review?

       I. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the
          admission of evidence of a bloody shoeprint, and failing to
          preserve the issue for appellate review?

       J. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly
          cross[-]examine an expert regarding tool marks?

       K. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call [Billie Jo
          Tashe] as a witness[?]

____________________________________________

is waived.”); see also Commonwealth v. Heggins, 809 A.2d 908, 912 (Pa.
Super. 2002) (an issue identified on appeal but not developed in the
appellant's brief is abandoned and, therefore, waived).

                                           -3-
J-S41029-23

Appellant’s Brief at 4-5.

       We adhere to the following legal precepts:

       Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited
       to examining whether the evidence of record supports the court's
       determination and whether its decision is free of legal error. This
       Court grants great deference to the factual findings of the PCRA
       court if the record contains any support for those findings. We
       review the court's legal conclusions de novo.

                               *               *    *

       Counsel is presumed to have rendered effective assistance.

       To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a
       defendant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence,
       ineffective assistance of counsel which, in the circumstances of
       the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process
       that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken
       place. The burden is on the defendant to prove all three of the
       following prongs: (1) the underlying claim is of arguable merit;
       (2) that counsel had no reasonable strategic basis for his or her
       action or inaction; and (3) but for the errors and omissions of
       counsel, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the
       proceedings would have been different.

Commonwealth v. Washington, 269 A.3d 1255, 1262–1263, appeal

denied, 283 A.3d 1249 (Pa. 2022) (internal citations, quotations and brackets

omitted).

       Based upon review of the certified record, the parties' appellate briefs,

the PCRA court's opinion,3 and applicable law, we find that the PCRA court

____________________________________________

3 Here, the PCRA court determined that trial counsel was effective. Regarding
Appellant’s claims pertaining to trial witnesses, the PCRA court first
determined that Stephen Espenlaub testified at trial that “his plea deal [on
unrelated charges] was sweeter than it actually was [and, therefore,] counsel
could not possibly help his credibility with the jury” and Espenlaub’s testimony
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -4-
J-S41029-23

thoroughly and accurately addressed the merits of Appellant’s issues in its

opinion. Consequently, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court opinion and

____________________________________________

actually “provided more reason [for him] to lie[.]” PCRA Court Opinion,
12/21/2022, at 6. Regarding trial witness, Nicole Allhouse, the PCRA court
first noted that she “was an important witness at trial and that her credibility
was very much at issue” but determined that trial counsel thoroughly
cross-examined her and, “unequivocally” concluded that “no one hearing her
testimony [] could fail to conclude that [Allhouse] had repeatedly been an
unabashed liar [] on numerous occasions leading up to trial.” Id. at 10
(emphasis omitted). Regarding Billie Jo Tashe, the PCRA court noted that
she was Appellant’s “girlfriend at the time of these homicides” but “clearly
made herself unavailable; was clearly unwilling to cooperate as demonstrated
by her disappearance; and offered the defense no testimony which would have
been particularly helpful at trial.” Id. at 22. Moreover, the PCRA court was
unable to find anything “in the record where there [wa]s any showing or even
suggestion that the Commonwealth attempted to coerce any witness [or] that
suggested anyone testified falsely.” Id. at 19. The PCRA court also
determined that Appellant failed to plead and prove that trial counsel was not
capital qualified at the time of trial and, instead, only offered evidence that
trial counsel “was not qualified (for a period of time) in 2012” or “six or seven
years after this trial.” Id. at 11-12 (emphasis in original). The PCRA court
further found that there was no merit to claims that trial counsel failed to
properly challenge the admission of evidence, including the autopsy report,
DNA and other scientific evidence, and expert testimony regarding a bloody
footprint and tool marks. The PCRA court recognized that challenging the
autopsy report was meritless because “the cause of death for both [] victims
was abundantly clear from the photos of the scene – namely their throats
were cut and [one victim] was also stabbed numerous times.” Id. at 11.
Moreover, the PCRA court noted that the DNA and scientific evidence entered
into evidence at trial “was inconclusive and was the best evidence available to
the defense to support a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 13. Further, the PCRA
court recognized that “no matter the strength (or weakness) of the DNA
evidence, it was going to be admissible in this (or any) trial.” Id. at 16.
Finally, because Appellant always “denied any involvement” in the crimes and
both the trial court and this Court on direct appeal concluded that a jury
instruction regarding accomplice liability was appropriate and necessary in this
case, the PCRA court determined that Appellant did not show how he was
prejudiced or “how the case could have been tried differently.” Id. at 18.

                                           -5-
J-S41029-23

adopt it as our own. The parties are instructed to attach a copy of the PCRA

court's December 21, 2022 opinion to all future filings regarding this appeal.

      Order affirmed.

FILED: 2/13/2024

                                     -6-