Court Opinion

ID: 9402696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 16:09:09.14049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:30.370300
License: Public Domain

J-A08008-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    JEREMEY DANIEL SICKENBERGER                :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 724 WDA 2022

               Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 24, 2022
                 In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County
               Criminal Division at No: CP-10-CR-0000805-2014

BEFORE:      STABILE, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:                          FILED: June 16, 2023

        Appellant, Jeremey Sickenberger, appeals from the May 24, 2022 order

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, denying his petition

for collateral relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”),

42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.           Appellant contends the PCRA court erred in

denying his PCRA claims that were based on trial counsel’s failure to (1)

request a mistake of fact jury instruction and (2) investigate whether

Appellant suffered from Autism Spectrum Disorder. Following review, while

we find no error in the PCRA court’s ruling regarding Appellant’s autism

spectrum claims, we reverse its ruling regarding the mistake of fact

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A08008-23

instruction, vacate Appellant’s judgment of sentence, and remand for a new

trial.

         Following a jury trial in 2016, Appellant was convicted of third-degree

murder in the shooting death of his best friend, Thomas John Stockman

(“Stockman”), and was sentenced to 18 to 40 years in prison.             On direct

appeal, this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v.

Sickenberger, No. 871 WDA 2017 (unpublished memorandum) (Pa. Super.

filed January 23, 2019).      Appellant did not file a petition for allowance of

appeal with our Supreme Court.

         On February 21, 2020, Appellant filed a timely PCRA petition. On July

10, 2020, he filed an amended petition. On September 29, 2020, the PCRA

court granted Appellant’s motion to appoint a forensic psychologist expert

witness. After a number of continuances, a PCRA hearing was conducted on

January 25 and February 4, 2022. Because the trial judge, the Honorable

William Shaffer, had retired, the Honorable Kelley T.D. Streib was appointed

to preside over the proceedings.

         On May 24, 2022, the PCRA court denied Appellant’s petition.           This

timely appeal followed.     Both Appellant and the PCRA court complied with

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

         Appellant presents three issues for our consideration:

         I.   Did the [PCRA] court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA claim
              that trial counsel was ineffective because trial counsel failed
              to request a mistake of fact jury instruction based on
              Appellant’s belief that the firearm was unloaded?

                                       -2-
J-A08008-23

      II.      Did the [PCRA] court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA claim
               that trial counsel was ineffective because trial counsel failed
               to adequately investigate whether Appellant suffered from
               Autism Spectrum Disorder, when such evidence could have
               been used at trial to rebut the Commonwealth’s claim of
               malice required for third degree murder?

      III.     Did the [PCRA] court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA claim
               that trial counsel was ineffective because trial counsel failed
               to present evidence at trial that Appellant suffered from
               Autism Spectrum Disorder, when such evidence could have
               been used at trial to rebut the Commonwealth’s claim of
               malice required for third degree murder?

Appellant’s Brief at 4 (some capitalization omitted).

      As this Court has explained:

      When reviewing the propriety of an order pertaining to PCRA relief,
      we consider the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing
      party at the PCRA level. This Court is limited to determining
      whether the evidence of record supports the conclusions of the
      PCRA court and whether the ruling is free of legal error. We grant
      great deference to the PCRA court’s findings that are supported in
      the record and will not disturb them unless they have no support
      in the certified record. However, we afford no such deference to
      the post-conviction court’s legal conclusions. We thus apply a de
      novo standard of review to the PCRA [c]ourt’s legal conclusions.

Commonwealth v. Diaz, 183 A.3d 417, 421 (Pa. Super. 2018).

      In each of his three issues, Appellant contends trial counsel was

ineffective.

      [T]o prove counsel ineffective, the petitioner must show that: (1)
      his underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) counsel had no
      reasonable basis for his action or inaction; and (3) the petitioner
      suffered actual prejudice as a result. If a petitioner fails to prove
      any of these prongs, his claim fails.

                                        -3-
J-A08008-23

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

and quotations omitted).        See also Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d

973, 975 (Pa. 1987).

       In his first issue, Appellant argues that trial counsel was ineffective for

failing to request a mistake of fact jury instruction based on Appellant’s belief

that the firearm was unloaded.          Although Appellant did not testify at trial,

Commonwealth witness, Ashley Homison, who was present at the time of the

shooting, testified that Appellant brought a gun into the living room of his

home where a group of friends was goofing around while watching the Vietnam

War scenes in the movie Forrest Gump. She stated that Appellant said that it

was a BB gun and that it was not loaded. Notes of Testimony (“N.T.”), Trial,

9/19/16, at 43, 47, 51. She also said she believed that Stockman’s death was

an accident. Id. at 59.1 Further, Trooper Michael J. Taylor, an investigator

with the Pennsylvania State Police, testified that Appellant said he thought the

gun was unloaded. Id. at 105. Moreover, although Appellant’s account of the

incident was inconsistent during the course of four police interviews, Trooper

Taylor acknowledged that Appellant’s account was consistent in that Appellant

maintained in each interview his belief that the gun was not loaded. Id. at

109. And, finally, Trooper Chris Birckbichler, another Pennsylvania State Police

____________________________________________

1 Ashley Homison was the only eyewitness to the shooting. Another friend
was in the house but was in the bathroom at the time of the shooting.
Appellant’s father was also in the home but was not in the room where the
incident occurred.

                                           -4-
J-A08008-23

investigator, stated that Appellant told him that he believed the gun was not

loaded. Id. at 185, 195.

      In Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 766 A.2d 874 (Pa. Super. 2001), this

Court reiterated that

      [i]t is well established that a bona fide, reasonable mistake of fact,
      may, under certain circumstances, negate the element of criminal
      intent. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 304 (providing, inter alia, that ignorance
      or mistake as to a matter of fact, for which there is a reasonable
      explanation or excuse, is a defense if “the ignorance or mistake
      negatives the intent, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence
      required to establish a material element of the offense”);
      Commonwealth v. Compel, 236 Pa. Super. 404, 344 A.2d 701
      (1975)[.] “It is not necessary that the facts be as the actor
      believed them to be; it is only necessary that he have ‘a bona fide
      and reasonable belief in the existence of facts which, if they did
      exist, would render an act innocent.’ Commonwealth v.
      Le[F]ever, 151 Pa. Super. 351, 30 A.2d 364, 365 (1943). See
      generally, Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 72 S.Ct.
      240, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952).” Commonwealth v. Compel, supra,
      at 702-03. When evidence of a mistake of fact is introduced, the
      Commonwealth retains the burden of proving the necessary
      criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the
      Commonwealth must prove either the absence of a bona fide,
      reasonable mistake, or that the mistake alleged would not have
      negated the intent necessary to prove the crime charged.

Id. at 878-79 (quoting Commonwealth v. Namack, 663 A.2d 191, 194-95

(Pa. Super. 1995) (footnote and some citations omitted)).

      Here, the PCRA court recognized, consistent with Spotz, that the failure

to prove any prong of the ineffectiveness test defeats the claim.          In this

instance, the court determined that Appellant failed to show that he suffered

actual prejudice, i.e., “that but for the [counsel’s failure to request the mistake

of fact instruction], the outcome of the proceedings would have been

                                       -5-
J-A08008-23

different.” PCRA Court Amended Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 9/14/22, at 6 (quoting

Commonwealth v. Lesko, 15 A.3d 345 (Pa. Super. 2011)). “The instant

trial record supports a finding that the outcome would not have been

different.”   Id. at 7.     In a footnote, the court noted, “[f]or clarity,” that

because Judge Shaffer had retired at the beginning of 2022, the case,

including the hearings on Appellant’s petition, was assigned to Judge Streib.

Id. at 7 n.2.

       In its amended Rule 1925(a) opinion, the PCRA court quoted from the

trial court’s July 12, 2017 Rule 1925(a) opinion issued on direct appeal. There,

the trial court addressed issues raised in Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement,

including a claim of trial counsel ineffectiveness for failing to request a mistake

of fact jury instruction.      While recognizing that Appellant’s ineffectiveness

claims did not warrant consideration on direct appeal,2 the trial court

nevertheless offered the following assessment:

       Based on the record, the claim relating to the mistake of fact
       instruction does not appear to be meritorious given the testimony
       at trial of [the gun owner, Paul] Pfaff, and the exercise by
       [Appellant] of his right not to testify at trial. To the extent that
       the claim would be considered by the court at this time, the claim
       would be denied.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/12/17, at 5 (some capitalization omitted).

____________________________________________

2 Appellant had invoked an exception recognized in Commonwealth v.
Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013), to the general rule adopted in
Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002), holding that
ineffectiveness claims should be deferred until collateral review.

                                           -6-
J-A08008-23

      In accordance with Grant, the ineffectiveness claim relating to the

mistake of fact jury instruction was not before the trial court. Therefore, the

trial court’s assessment is nothing more than that: an assessment. It is clearly

dicta. Consequently, we dismiss the PCRA court’s statement that it would “not

be tempted to second-guess the explicit explanation by the trial court that

viewed the mistake of fact jury instruction to not be meritorious at the time

of trial.” PCRA Court Amended Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 9/14/22, at 7.

      We similarly dismiss the PCRA court’s suggestion that by affirming

Appellant’s judgment of sentence on direct appeal, this Court somehow

disposed of Appellant’s ineffectiveness claim.     Specifically, the PCRA court

stated:

      [Appellant] raised in the statement of errors complained of on
      appeal filed following sentencing [that] the trial court erred by
      failing to give the mistake of fact jury instruction. The Superior
      Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. While not specifically
      addressing the mistake of fact jury instruction, if the argument
      had merit then, the Superior Court would have addressed the
      issue and either still affirmed the conviction and sentence or
      reversed and remanded it with further instructions.

Id. at 7-8 (some capitalization omitted).

      The PCRA court fails to appreciate that the mistake of fact jury

instruction issue was not before this Court on direct appeal. Appellant did not

claim trial court error for failure to give the instruction, nor could he in light

of the fact that trial counsel did not request the instruction.         Although

Appellant raised the failure to give the instruction in his Rule 1925(b)

statement on direct appeal, it was only in the context of trial counsel’s

                                      -7-
J-A08008-23

ineffectiveness.3 Appellant’s claim of ineffectiveness was properly deferred to

collateral review. See Grant.

       The PCRA court also cited the May 16, 2017 opinion issued by the trial

court in support of its denial of post-sentence motions. Id. at 7. Specifically,

the PCRA court referred to matters that the trial court included in its analysis

of Appellant’s post-sentence claims relating to sufficiency and weight of the

evidence. To the extent the evidence is supported by the record, we do not

dispute the evidence as summarized in the trial court’s opinion and

incorporated in the PCRA court’s opinion. However, we recognize that the

evidence was being viewed by the trial court in the context of Appellant’s

sufficiency and weight claims and, therefore, was being viewed in the light

most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner. As a result, in view

of inconsistencies in the testimony of Paul Pfaff, see n. 3, infra, and the trial

court’s seeming dismissal of testimony regarding Appellant’s beliefs about the

gun being unloaded, the trial court’s May 16, 2017 factual summary is not

particularly instructive for our purposes.

       For purposes of the ineffectiveness claims before this Court, we should

not view this matter in terms of whether the evidence was sufficient to support

a verdict that was rendered without a mistake of fact instruction. Rather, we

must view this matter in terms of whether the PCRA court erred in concluding

____________________________________________

3 We note that Appellant abandoned the mistake of fact jury instruction claim
in the brief filed with this Court on direct appeal.

                                           -8-
J-A08008-23

that Appellant did not suffer prejudice as a result of counsel’s failure to request

a mistake of fact instruction. In that regard, we conclude that the instruction

would have put squarely at issue whether Appellant’s mistake regarding the

gun being loaded negated the intent required to establish malice, an element

of the crime of third-degree murder.             As indicated in the standard jury

instruction,

       3. In a case where the mistake of fact or ignorance is raised, [the
       jury] must decide whether there was such a mistake or lack of
       awareness of a fact, whether that mistake or ignorance was
       reasonable under circumstances, and whether that mistake or
       ignorance shows that one of the elements of the crime charges
       was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

8.304 IGNORANCE OR MISTAKE, Pa. SSJI (Crim), §8.304 (May 2016).

       In the context of this case, that jury determination is important

because:

       4. To overcome this defense, the prosecution must prove, beyond
       a reasonable doubt, one of the following: (1) that the defendant
       did not have that mistaken belief [or that the defendant was not
       ignorant of the fact], (2) that the mistaken belief [or the ignorance
       of the fact] was not reasonable, or (3) that the mistake [or
       ignorance of a fact] did not prevent or eliminate the required
       element of [malice].

Id.

       In summary, while it is undisputed that Commonwealth witness Paul

Pfaff testified that he told Appellant the gun was loaded4 and it is further

____________________________________________

4 Pfaff explained that he left three guns at Appellant’s home a few days before
the shooting because he and Appellant, along with two other friends, were

                                           -9-
J-A08008-23

undisputed that Appellant did not testify on his own behalf, it is equally

undisputed from a review of the trial testimony that Ashley Homison stated

three times during her testimony that Appellant said the gun was not loaded,

including twice before the shooting. N.T., Trial, 9/19/16, at 43, 47, 51. In

addition, Trooper Taylor testified that Appellant was consistent in his four

interviews in maintaining he believed that gun was not loaded, id. at 109, and

Trooper Birckbichler testified that Appellant told him he thought the gun was

not loaded. Id. at 185, 195. Therefore, even though Appellant did not testify,

Ashley Homison and Troopers Taylor and Birckbichler, all of whom were

Commonwealth witnesses, did offer testimony and their observations

regarding Appellant’s mental state and his stated belief that the gun was not

loaded. In light of that testimony, counsel should have requested a mistake

of fact instruction, which, if granted, would have required the Commonwealth

to prove that one of the three scenarios set forth in Paragraph 4 of the

instruction as set forth above. We conclude that if the trial court had delivered

the mistake of fact instruction, there is a reasonable probability that the

____________________________________________

going to a bar in Ohio and he did not want to risk being stopped with guns in
the car. Pfaff helped Appellant carry the guns and ammunition into Appellant’s
bedroom and placed them on Appellant’s bed. He stated that, based on his
review of his statement to police, he told Appellant the .22 rifle involved in
Stockman’s death was loaded, but the other guns were not. N.T., Trial,
9/20/16, at 54-59. However, while he acknowledged that a police statement
reflected that he was 90% sure the rifle was not loaded, he explained that
there was no round in the chamber and that “unloaded means not one in the
chamber.” Id. at 67-68. He was 100% sure he told Appellant the magazine
was loaded but there was not a round in the chamber. Id. at 70.

                                          - 10 -
J-A08008-23

outcome of the proceedings would have been different. Specifically, there is

a reasonable probability that, considering Appellant’s mistaken belief that the

gun was not loaded, the jury would have concluded that Appellant acted

without malice and, therefore, would have convicted Appellant of involuntary

manslaughter rather than third-degree murder. For that reason, we find that

the PCRA court erred in concluding that Appellant was not prejudiced by

counsel’s failure to request the mistake of fact instruction.5

       While we find that the PCRA court erred with respect to the mistake of

fact jury instruction, we find no error in its rejection of Appellant’s second and

third claims, both of which involve Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”). Again,

____________________________________________

5 As recognized in Spotz, prejudice is just one of the three prongs that must
be established for an ineffectiveness claim. We find that the remaining two
elements are satisfied here. Based on testimony from Ashley Homison,
Trooper Taylor, and Trooper Birckbichler, and inconsistent testimony from gun
owner, Paul Pfaff, see n.3, there were grounds to support a request for a
mistake of fact instruction. Because a mistake of fact instruction could have
resulted in the jury finding Appellant not guilty of third-degree murder,
Appellant’s claim is of arguable merit. Further, it is clear that the failure to
request the instruction was not part of counsel’s trial strategy, as evidenced
by his statement, “Well, with the benefit of hindsight, that probably should
have been asked for.” N.T., PCRA Hearing, 1/25/22, at 146. Counsel could
not recall reading the subcommittee note that accompanies the instruction
and said he did not think he reviewed Hamilton, supra, which is cited in that
subcommittee note, before preparing for Appellant’s trial. Id. at 144-45.
Appellant suggests that “[i]t was not hindsight that illuminated that issue for
trial counsel. It was an education on the basic law related to the mistake of
fact jury instruction as it relates to whether a defendant knew the firearm was
loaded or unloaded in a homicide case.” Appellant’s Brief at 30 (emphasis in
original; some capitalization omitted).

                                          - 11 -
J-A08008-23

failure to prove any prong of the ineffectiveness test outlined in Spotz will

defeat an appellant’s claim of ineffectiveness.

      After examining the second prong of the Spotz test, the PCRA court

concluded that counsel had a reasonable basis for not further investigating,

and for not introducing evidence relating to, ASD.       PCRA Amended Rule

1925(a) Opinion, 9/14/22, at 9-11. We find no error in this conclusion.

      Here, counsel expressed his concern that the jury could be offended by

claiming Appellant was not culpable because he was autistic.        N.T., PCRA

Hearing, 2/4/22, at 45. Further, as the PCRA court observed:

      Trial counsel . . . stated on multiple occasions the information he
      had at the time of the trial about [Appellant’s] potential diagnosis
      of ASD. Trial counsel testified that he used the county resources
      to have a mental health evaluation completed for [Appellant].
      Trial counsel further stated that he trusted the evaluation done
      and that if someone is not diagnosed, they may be recommended
      to be further evaluated for an official diagnosis. Additionally, he
      testified, “In this instance that report did not give me more to go
      down the rabbit hole or go down the evaluation process of autism
      spectrum.” Trial counsel had a mental health evaluation done of
      [Appellant]. The evaluation came back with no diagnosis nor any
      formal recommendation [that Appellant] seek further evaluation.

      Trial counsel also knew about [Appellant’s] potential ASD [] from
      [Appellant] himself and his mother. Trial counsel testified that he
      knew that [Appellant’s] mother talked about ASD and how
      [Appellant] self-reported it.        Trial counsel made the
      determination, after having a mental health evaluation done and
      having no official diagnosis of ASD, not to bring up [Appellant’s]
      possibility of ASD. Trial counsel made the strategic determination
      that the information he possessed at the time was, “not strong
      enough to put autism before the jury.”

Id. at 10 (citations to notes of PCRA Hearing testimony omitted).

                                     - 12 -
J-A08008-23

         We find no error in the PCRA court’s conclusion that trial counsel had a

reasonable basis for failing to further investigate ASD and for failing to

introduce evidence relating to ASD. Therefore, we shall not disturb its ruling

in that regard. However, because we find that trial counsel was ineffective for

failing to request a mistake of fact jury instruction, we reverse the PCRA

court’s order, vacate Appellant’s judgment of sentence, and remand for a new

trial.

         Order reversed.     Judgment of sentence vacated.      Case remanded.

Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/16/2023

                                       - 13 -
J-A08008-23

              - 14 -