Court Opinion

ID: 9957109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 17:12:03.165457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:06.423540
License: Public Domain

J-S47045-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  BRANDON EUGENE DAVIS                         :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 646 EDA 2023

           Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 21, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-09-CR-0000830-2018

BEFORE:      STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                            FILED APRIL 3, 2024

       Brandon Eugene Davis appeals pro se from the February 21, 2023 order

dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act

(“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. After careful review, we affirm.

       A prior panel of this Court summarized the relevant factual background

of this case as follows:

              [D]uring the evening of August 17, 201[7], Appellant
              and several co-conspirators conducted surveillance of
              the [Jonathan and Emily] Nadavs’ home, and at 2:00
              a.m. on August 21, 2017, they entered the home
              carrying firearms, as well as wearing masks, gloves,
              and dark clothing.

              Twenty-five-year-old Elle Nadav and her twelve-year-
              old sister, C.N., were in the home, along with their
              maternal grandmother, Manya Guravich, and their

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S47045-23

            parents, Jonathan and Emily Nadav.        Their sister,
            Jade, was away at college.

            After the men entered the home through a window,
            two of them approached Elle, woke her, pointed guns
            at her, and bound her hands with shoelaces. After she
            was restrained, one of the gunmen used his cellular
            telephone to advise someone, “We're in.” The men
            told Elle they were there for “Yanni,” which is the
            nickname of her father, Jonathan. One of the gunmen
            remained with Elle and took her wallet and cell phone.
            Meanwhile, a different gunman woke Manya and took
            her watch. A third gunman woke C.N., forced her into
            her parents’ room, and forced her to wake them.
            Thus, the Nadavs awoke to find their twelve-year-old
            daughter being held at gunpoint.

            The gunmen demanded the Nadavs open their safe,
            and Jonathan, who owns several clothing stores in the
            Philadelphia area, initially denied there was a safe. In
            response, a gunman slapped him hard across the face
            and then used his cellular telephone to advise
            someone, “I need help here.”

            Jonathan then opened the safe at gunpoint. The
            gunmen removed jewelry and $50,000.00 from the
            safe; in total, they stole more than $300,000.00 in
            property and cash from the Nadav house. Jonathan,
            Emily, C.N., and Manya were forced into a closet and
            warned not to call the police. Before leaving, the
            gunmen told Elle they knew where Jade went to
            college and described Jade’s car. They told Elle that
            Jade would be killed if the family called the police.
            However, after the gunmen left, Emily called the
            police, who were dispatched at 2:32 a.m.

Commonwealth v. Davis, 241 A.3d 1160, 1167-1168 (Pa.Super. 2020)

(citations omitted), appeal denied, 253 A.3d 211 (Pa. 2021).

      The relevant procedural history of this case, as gleaned from the

certified record, is as follows: Appellant was arrested in connection with this

                                     -2-
J-S47045-23

incident and proceeded to a jury trial before the Honorable Diane E. Gibbons

on January 28, 2019. Following a four-day trial, a jury found Appellant guilty

of ten counts of robbery; burglary; two counts of criminal conspiracy; five

counts of simple assault; five counts of recklessly endangering another

person; false imprisonment of a minor; four counts of false imprisonment;

unlawful restraint of a minor; four counts of unlawful restraint; theft by

unlawful taking; theft by extortion; and criminal coercion.1

       On May 23, 2019, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate

term of 40 to 80 years’ imprisonment. Following the denial of post-sentence

motions, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on October 21, 2019. On

October 23, 2020, a panel of this Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment

sentence, and our Supreme Court denied his petition for allowance of appeal

on May 4, 2021.         See Davis, supra.        Appellant did not seek a writ of

certiorari from the United States Supreme Court.

       On July 13, 2021, Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition and

PCRA counsel was appointed to represent him. On September 30, 2021, PCRA

counsel sought an extension of time while Commonwealth v. Pacheco, 263

A.3d 626 (Pa. 2021), was pending before our Supreme Court. Following our

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701(a)(1)(ii) and (iii), 3502, 903, 2701, 2705, 2903(b),

2903(a), 2902(b), 2902(a), 3921, 3923, and 2906, respectively.

                                           -3-
J-S47045-23

Supreme Court’s decision in Pacheco,2 PCRA counsel filed a petition to

withdraw and “no-merit” letter in accordance with Turner/Finley.3

       Although still represented by PCRA counsel, Appellant filed multiple pro

se “amended” and “supplemental” petitions on January 10, April 4, and April

7, 2022, respectively.       On April 25, 2022, the PCRA court ordered PCRA

counsel to address the issues raised by Appellant in response to her “no merit”

letter. Thereafter, PCRA counsel filed a supplemental petition to withdraw and

“no merit” letter on August 31, 2022.

       On December 21, 2022, the PCRA court provided Appellant with notice

of its intention to dismiss his petition without a hearing, pursuant to

Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). Following an extension, Appellant filed a response to

the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice on January 20, 2023.           Thereafter, on

____________________________________________

2  In Pacheco, our Supreme Court addressed the question left unresolved in
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), namely whether Fourth
Amendment protections extend to the collection of real-time cell site location
information (“CSLI”). Pacheco, 263 A.3d at 638-639. In affirming the
decision of this Court, our Supreme Court held in Pacheco that “Carpenter’s
warrant requirement for the collection of historical CSLI, which provides a
comprehensive chronicle of the user’s past movements, applies with equal
force to the collection of real-time CSLI[.]” Id. at 640 (citation and original
quotation marks omitted). The Pacheco Court reasoned that, inter alia,
Pacheco maintained “an expectation of privacy in his location and physical
movements as revealed by the Commonwealth’s collection of real-time CSLI
over a period of months, which society is prepared to accept as reasonable[.]”
Pacheco, 263 A.3d at 640.

3 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988),                         and
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. 1988) (en banc).

                                           -4-
J-S47045-23

February 21, 2023, the PCRA court granted PCRA counsel permission to

withdraw and dismissed Appellant’s petition.      This timely pro se appeal

followed on March 3, 2023.4

       Preliminarily, we note that proper appellate review of a PCRA court’s

dismissal of a PCRA petition is limited to the examination of “whether the PCRA

court’s determination is supported by the record and free of legal error.”

Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation

omitted). “This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court,

and we will not disturb those findings merely because the record could support

a contrary holding.”       Commonwealth v. Patterson, 143 A.3d 394, 397

(Pa.Super. 2016) (citation omitted). In order to be eligible for PCRA relief, a

defendant must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his

conviction or sentence arose from one or more of the errors listed at 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2). These issues must be neither previously litigated nor

waived. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(3).

       As best we can discern from his disjointed, 54-page appellate brief,

Appellant raises of litany of claims on appeal challenging the effectiveness of

his trial, direct appeal, and PCRA counsel.5 See Appellant’s brief at x-xi. For

____________________________________________

4 Appellant and the PCRA court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

5 The record reflects that Appellant was represented at trial and on direct
appeal by Nathan Criste, Esq. (“trial counsel” or “direct appeal counsel”), and
was represented during his PCRA proceedings by Bonnie-Ann Brill Keagy, Esq.
(“PCRA counsel”).

                                           -5-
J-S47045-23

the ease of our discussion, we have elected to address Appellant’s allegations

of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness first.

                                            I.

      Appellant argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to retain

and call any expert witnesses on behalf to rebut the testimony of the

Commonwealth’s experts at trial. Appellant’s brief at 6-19.

      To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the PCRA,

a petitioner must establish the following three factors: “first[,] the underlying

claim has arguable merit; second, that counsel had no reasonable basis for

his   action    or   inaction;   and   third,     that   Appellant   was   prejudiced.”

Commonwealth v. Charleston, 94 A.3d 1012, 1020 (Pa.Super. 2014)

(citation omitted), appeal denied, 104 A.3d 523 (Pa. 2014).

               [A] PCRA petitioner will be granted relief only when he
               proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his
               conviction or sentence resulted from the [i]neffective
               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.

Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294, 311 (Pa. 2014) (internal quotation

marks    omitted;      some      brackets    in    original),   citing   42   Pa.C.S.A.

§ 9543(a)(2)(ii).

      “[C]ounsel is presumed to be effective and the burden of demonstrating

ineffectiveness rests on appellant.”         Commonwealth v. Ousley, 21 A.3d

                                            -6-
J-S47045-23

1238, 1242 (Pa.Super. 2011) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 30 A.3d 487

(Pa. 2011).

      Upon review, we find that Appellant’s ineffectiveness claim fails because

he failed to satisfy the first prong of the aforementioned test; namely, that

this claim had arguable merit. The record reflects that Appellant has failed to

identify any expert witness who was available and willing to testify on his

behalf. Our Supreme Court has long recognized that “[w]hen a defendant

claims that some sort of expert testimony should have been introduced at

trial, the defendant must articulate what evidence was available and identify

the witness who was willing to offer such evidence.”        Commonwealth v.

Keaton, 45 A.3d 1050, 1071 (Pa. 2012) (citation omitted). Based on the

foregoing, Appellant’s first ineffectiveness claim must fail.

                                        II.

      Appellant next argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to

investigate and call Shavonna Baker, the mother of his child, to support his

alibi defense. Appellant’s brief at 20-24.

              To prove that trial counsel provided ineffective
              assistance for failing to call a witness, a petitioner
              must demonstrate:

              (1) the witness existed; (2) the witness was available
              to testify for the defense; (3) counsel knew of, or
              should have known of, the existence of the witness;
              (4) the witness was willing to testify for the defense;
              and (5) the absence of the testimony of the witness
              was so prejudicial as to have denied the defendant a
              fair trial.

                                       -7-
J-S47045-23

Commonwealth v. Brown, 196 A.3d 130, 167 (Pa. 2018) (citation omitted).

        Upon review, we find that Appellant’s ineffectiveness claim fails because

he failed to satisfy the second and third prongs of the aforementioned

ineffectiveness test; namely, that trial counsel had no reasonable basis for his

inaction and that Appellant suffered prejudice as a result. The record reflects

that trial counsel called three separate alibi witnesses on Appellant’s behalf at

trial. See notes of testimony, 1/30/19 at 133-167. Appellant, in turn, failed

to offer an affidavit or averment from Baker as to what she would have

potentially testified to at trial, as required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(A)(15).6 It is

____________________________________________

6 Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 902(A) provides, in relevant part,

that:

              A petition for post-conviction collateral relief shall
              bear the caption, number, and court term of the case
              or cases in which relief is requested and shall contain
              substantially the following information:

              ....

              (15) if applicable, any request for an evidentiary
              hearing. The request for an evidentiary hearing
              shall include a signed certification as to each
              intended witness, stating the witness’s name,
              address, and date of birth, and the substance of
              the witness’s testimony. Any documents material
              to the witness’s testimony shall also be included in the
              petition[.]

Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(A)(15).

                                           -8-
J-S47045-23

well settled that the failure of trial counsel “to call a particular witness does

not constitute ineffective assistance without some showing that the absent

witness’ testimony would have been beneficial or helpful in establishing the

asserted defense.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, 536 (Pa.

2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).           Based on the

foregoing, Appellant’s second ineffectiveness claim must fail.

                                        III.

      Appellant next argues that his trial/direct appeal counsel was ineffective

for failing to raise a weight of the evidence claim. Appellant’s brief at 25-32.

      Our standard of review for a claim that the verdict was against the

weight of the evidence is as follows:

            A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the
            verdict is against the weight of the evidence is
            addressed to the discretion of the trial court. A new
            trial should not be granted because of a mere conflict
            in the testimony or because the judge on the same
            facts would have arrived at a different conclusion.
            Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that
            notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so
            clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give
            them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice.
            It has often been stated that a new trial should be
            awarded when the jury’s verdict is so contrary to the
            evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice and the
            award of a new trial is imperative so that right may be
            given another opportunity to prevail.

            An appellate court’s standard of review when
            presented with a weight of the evidence claim is
            distinct from the standard of review applied by the
            trial court:

                                        -9-
J-S47045-23

              Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the
              exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question
              of whether the verdict is against the weight of the
              evidence.     Because the trial judge has had the
              opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented,
              an appellate court will give the gravest consideration
              to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial
              judge when reviewing a trial court's determination
              that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.
              One of the least assailable reasons for granting or
              denying a new trial is the lower court’s conviction that
              the verdict was or was not against the weight of the
              evidence and that a new trial should be granted in the
              interest of justice.

Commonwealth v. Sebolka, 205 A.3d 329, 340–341 (Pa.Super. 2019)

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

      Upon review, we find that this claim fails as Appellant has again failed

to satisfy the second and third prongs of the aforementioned ineffectiveness

test; namely, that trial counsel had no reasonable strategic basis for forgoing

a weight claim and that Appellant suffered prejudice as a result.

      “It is well settled that appellate counsel is entitled, as a matter of

strategy, to for[]go even meritorious issues in favor of issues he believes pose

a greater likelihood of success.”     Commonwealth v. Johnson, 139 A.3d

1257, 1276 n.9 (Pa. 2016). To prove prejudice, in turn, a petitioner must

demonstrate that “but for counsel’s deficient stewardship, there is a

reasonable likelihood the outcome of the proceedings would have been

different.”   Commonwealth v. Simpson, 66 A.3d 253, 260 (Pa. 2013)

(citation omitted).

                                       - 10 -
J-S47045-23

      Here, the evidence presented at trial – including CSI placing Appellant

at the scene of the crime and cell phone records indicating communication

between Appellant and his two co-defendants at the time of the crime –

overwhelmingly established that Appellant was one of the perpetrators who

engaged in an armed home invasion at the victim’s residence. Appellant has

failed to demonstrate how a conviction on such evidence “shock[s] one’s sense

of justice.” Davidson, 860 A.2d at 582. Accordingly, Appellant’s claim that

counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to pursue this claim must fail.

                                       IV.

      To the extent Appellant argues that his PCRA counsel was ineffective in

failing to raise trial/direct appeal counsel’s purported ineffectiveness with

respect to the aforementioned claims, see Appellant’s brief at 5-6, 20, 25, we

find that these arguments warrant no relief.

      The proper framework for alleging a layered ineffective assistance of

counsel claim in the context of the PCRA is as follows:

            Succinctly stated, a petitioner must plead in his PCRA
            petition that his prior counsel, whose alleged
            ineffectiveness is at issue, was ineffective for failing
            to raise the claim that the counsel who preceded him
            was ineffective in taking or omitting some action. In
            addition, a petitioner must present argument, in briefs
            or other court memoranda, on the three prongs of the
            [ineffectiveness] test as to each relevant layer of
            representation. . . . [T]his means that the arguable
            merit prong of the [ineffectiveness] test as to the
            claim that appellate counsel was ineffective in not
            raising trial counsel’s ineffectiveness consists of the
            application of the three-prong [ineffectiveness] test to

                                     - 11 -
J-S47045-23

            the underlying claim of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness.
            If any one of the prongs as to trial counsel’s
            ineffectiveness is not established, then necessarily the
            claim of appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness fails. Only
            if all three prongs as to the claim of trial counsel’s
            ineffectiveness are established, do prongs 2 and 3 of
            the [ineffectiveness] test as to the claim of appellate
            counsel’s ineffectiveness have relevance, requiring a
            determination as to whether appellate counsel had a
            reasonable basis for his course of conduct in failing to
            raise a meritorious claim of trial counsel’s
            ineffectiveness (prong 2) and whether petitioner was
            prejudiced by appellate counsel’s course of conduct in
            not raising the meritorious claim of trial counsel’s
            ineffectiveness (prong 3).

Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 470, 482 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted).

      Here, our review of Appellant’s brief indicates that he has failed to

properly raise his layered ineffectiveness claims by applying the three-prong

ineffectiveness test to each level of representation. A determination that trial

counsel rendered ineffective assistance is a prerequisite to finding that any

subsequent counsel was himself ineffective, and no such findings were

demonstrated in this case. See Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260,

1270 (Pa.Super. 2010).       Accordingly, Appellant’s layered ineffectiveness

claims must fail.

      In reaching these conclusions, we note that “[a]lthough this Court is

willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status

confers no special benefit upon the appellant. To the contrary, any person

choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding must . . . assume that his

                                     - 12 -
J-S47045-23

lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing. Commonwealth v.

Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 498 (Pa.Super. 2005) (citation omitted).

                                         V.

        Appellant next argues that PCRA counsel was ineffective in basing the

argument she raised on his behalf solely on Pacheco and law enforcement’s

collection of his real-time CSLI, at the expense of other potentially meritorious

issues. Appellant’s brief at 33-41. This claim is disingenuous.

        Here, the record reflects that in her first petition to withdrawal/no-merit

letter, PCRA counsel properly addressed all the claims that Appellant raised in

his initial PCRA petition and ultimately found them to be meritless. See PCRA

Petition, 7/13/21; Petition to Withdraw and Turner/Finley No-Merit Letter,

12/1/21. Accordingly, Appellant’s ineffectiveness claim in this regard must

fail.

                                        VI.

        Lastly, Appellant contends that PCRA counsel was ineffective in filing

her first petition to withdraw before she completely reviewed the January 31,

2019 notes of testimony. Appellant’s brief at 42-50.

        The PCRA court comprehensively discussed this claim in its Rule 1925(a)

opinion, reasoning as follows:

              This court did not make its decision on Appellant’s
              PCRA claims until after PCRA counsel reviewed the
              missing notes of testimony. PCRA counsel explained
              that the January 31, 2019, notes of testimony

                                       - 13 -
J-S47045-23

            transcribing the jury instructions and verdict were not
            ordered or reviewed before her initial [withdrawal
            motion and Turner/Finley letter] were filed on
            December 1, 2021. [PCRA c]ounsel explained in her
            Supplemental Petition To Withdraw [], filed on August
            31, 2022, that “[d]uring July of 2022, counsel for both
            [Appellant] and Commonwealth determined that a
            transcript from the trial proceedings was not part of
            the official record of the Court[,] and PCRA Counsel,
            in light of her responsibility to exhaustively review the
            entire file, asked that the transcript be made available
            and for an extension until such time as the transcript
            was produced.”           See Supplemental Petition,
            [8/31/22] at 3-4, ¶ 7. PCRA counsel then explained
            that she “undertook another complete review of
            [Appellant’s] file including reading all transcripts.” Id.
            at ¶ 8.

            As set out earlier in this opinion, PCRA counsel was
            required to review any claims that Appellant raised in
            his PCRA petition. None of his initial pro se claims
            raised any issues involving the trial court’s instruction
            to the jury or the verdict, the testimony contained in
            the missing transcript.

            ....

            For all of the above reasons, PCRA counsel was not
            ineffective for not initially reviewing the jury
            instruction and verdict notes of testimony prior to
            filing her first [Turner/Finley] letter.

PCRA court opinion, 7/3/23 at 25-27 (extraneous capitalization omitted).

      Following our thorough review, we find the PCRA court’s rationale is

supported by competent evidence and is clearly free of legal error.

Accordingly, we adopt the PCRA court’s analysis as our own for purposes of

appellate review of this issue.

                                     - 14 -
J-S47045-23

     Based on all of the foregoing, we affirm the February 21, 2023 order of

the PCRA court dismissing Appellant’s PCRA petition.

     Order affirmed.

Date: 4/03/2024

                                   - 15 -