Court Opinion

ID: 9762944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:34:14.741841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:38.703358
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Judge,
dissenting:
I believe that the claimed ineffective assistance of counsel could not have implicated the truth-determining process in this case in any manner. I also believe we are precluded from examining those claims set forth in the appellant’s pro se supplemental brief. Since I believe we should neither reach an examination of the Statewide Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act nor review appellant’s pro se claims, I must respectfully dissent.
The sole issue set forth in the brief filed on behalf of Walter Garnett, Jr. by the Public Defender’s Office is:
Whether trial counsel was ineffective in not raising and preserving the issue as to whether Appellant’s arrest was illegal since the arrest occurred outside of the jurisdiction of the arresting officers.
Brief of Appellant, Statement of Question Involved, page 3.
On his direct appeal from judgment of sentence, Garnett argued that the confessions he had made to police, evidence of which the trial court refused to suppress and which was used against him at trial, were the product of an unnecessary delay between arrest and arraignment. In rejecting this claim, this court found:
Garnett himself first contacted police to offer information he said he had withheld at the time of the crimes six months *68before. After several conversations with police, Garnett requested they pick him up and take him to the station for a discussion. He was picked up at 8:30 a.m. and transported to the police station. On his arrival, he was informed he was not in custody and was free to leave, and he was given Miranda warnings. Between 9:00 and 9:30 a.m., he gave a statement implicating his father in the crimes. The police requested he submit to a polygraph examination in Philadelphia to which he agreed. On arrival in Philadelphia at noon and after Miranda warnings, Garnett took the polygraph examination, and, immediately after completion of the examination at 3:30 p.m., he admitted his own involvement. Only at that time did he become a suspect. He was placed under arrest and again given Miranda warnings, and he then gave a statement and signed a transcription. Garnett was returned to Chester and fed, and a confirmatory statement was taken after Miranda warnings. His arraignment took place at 7:30 or 8:30 p.m. that evening. Thus there was a delay of five hours at most between Garnett’s arrest and arraignment. Under the circumstances, the statement could not have been the product of unnecessary delay because there was no unnecessary delay. See Commonwealth v. Coley, 466 Pa. 53, 351 A.2d 617 (1976) (Plurality Opinion).
Commonwealth v. Garnett, 267 Pa.Super. 41, 43, 405 A.2d 1293, 1294 (1979).
In order to be eligible for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act, as amended April 13, 1988, P.L. 336, No. 47, § 3, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541 et seq. (1992 Supp.), a person claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must plead and prove, in addition to other requirements:
That the conviction or sentence resulted from ...
(ii) 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.
*6942 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(ii). This provision, enacted in 1988 and applicable on this appeal, reflects a legislative perception that courts had been too generous in entertaining claims for relief under the former statute. Commonwealth v. Lawson, 519 Pa. 504, 513 n. 12, 549 A.2d 107, 112 n. 12 (1988).
All of the recent decisions of this Court are uniform in applying the stringent requirements of § 9543(a)(2)(h). Thus, in Commonwealth v. Weinder, 395 Pa.Super. 608, 577 A.2d 1364 (1990), this Court acknowledged that it is not enough for an appellant to show that he or she has suffered some prejudice as a result of counsel’s action or inaction, but rather that counsel’s action or inaction so affected the trial itself (the “truth-determining process”) that the result of the trial is inherently unreliable. Id., 395 Pa.Superior Ct. at 625, 577 A.2d at 1374. In Weinder, the matter was remanded for further proceedings, in part because it was clear, under Commonwealth v. Pounds, 490 Pa. 621, 634 n. 17, 417 A.2d 597, 603 n. 17 (1980), that a correct alibi instruction is an essential part of the truth determining process.
We have several recent cases where it has been determined, as a matter of law and without resort to any traditional three-prong ineffectiveness analysis, that eligibility for PCRA relief is not available. In Commonwealth v. Hanes, 397 Pa.Super. 38, 45, 579 A.2d 920, 923 (1990), we recognized that the amendment appearing as 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(h) “is a substantial restriction of the grounds for post-conviction collateral relief in Pennsylvania,” citing to Commonwealth v. Thomas, 396 Pa.Super. 92, 98, 578 A.2d 422, 425 (1990). In Thomas, there was dictum suggesting that the new subsection mandates a two-step analysis and that a court must first apply the “well-settled three prong standard for ineffectiveness to determine if counsel was ineffective.” Id. The later cases indicate, however, that this suggested two-step analysis is not required.
In Hanes, supra, we held that trial counsel’s failure to poll the jury “when it was obvious that its verdict was inconsistent,” does not raise a claim that undermines the truth-determining process. Thus, we found that the issue was not *70cognizable under the PCRA. Id., 397 Pa.Superior Ct. at 45, 579 A.2d at 923. Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Pitts, 397 Pa.Super. 387, 393, 580 A.2d 352, 355 (1990), we held that counsel’s failure to seek severance where both charges stemmed from the same criminal incident was not cognizable on its face, since severance of charges to which the defendant obviously was guilty did not implicate the reliability of the truth-determining process. To the same effect, we have recently held that 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(h) precludes analysis based upon the traditional three-prong standard, where the claim of ineffectiveness is based upon factual inaccuracies. Commonwealth v. Senk, 399 Pa.Super. 627, 631 n. 4, 582 A.2d 1119, 1121 n. 4 (1990).
When I apply the principles announced in these cases to the appeal now before this court, I am unable to agree with the majority that an analysis of the legality of the arrest and the possible applicability of the Statewide Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act is necessary to our decision on this appeal. Nowhere in Garnett’s 24-page petition filed under the PCRA does he allege that any violation “so undermined the truth determining process that no rehable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.” Nor does he advance such an argument in his brief to this court. Commonwealth v. Laskaris, 407 Pa.Super. 440, 444-45, 595 A.2d 1229, 1231 (1991).
We have held that, where an issue does not bear upon a defendant’s ultimate guilt or innocence, and where the defendant fails either to explain how the truth-determining process was undermined, or to allege that counsel’s actions prevented a reliable determination of guilt or innocence, the claim is not cognizable under the PCRA Commonwealth v. Tanner, 410 Pa.Super. 398, 405, 600 A.2d 201, 205 (1991). See also Commonwealth v. Grier, 410 Pa.Super. 284, 288, 599 A.2d 993, 995 (1991) (collecting cases).
As the Opinion by the majority on this appeal points out, both the trial court and this court have already determined that the inculpatory statements were voluntarily given by Garnett. That is the law of this case. Commonwealth v. Goldblum, 498 Pa. 455, 473, 447 A.2d 234, 243 (1982); Com*71monwealth v. Lenig, 403 Pa.Super. 455, 460, 589 A.2d 700, 702-703 (1991). Garnett’s arrest in Philadelphia by the Chester Police could not, in any way, have undermined the truth-determining process where this court has already determined that the inculpatory statements were voluntarily given. Since the truth-determining process was not undermined by Gar-nett’s arrest in Philadelphia, the adjudication of guilt may not be challenged under the PCRA on these allegations. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(h).
Moreover, the notes of testimony from the PCRA hearing held on June 5, 1989 have not been included in the record certified to this court and may not have even been transcribed. In his Opinion prepared pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925 and dated February 19, 1992, the Honorable William R. Toal, Jr., P.J. states:
The defendant filed a pro se Petition for Post Conviction Relief alleging that his confessions were obtained by deception and fraud and were not voluntary. He further alleges that his arrest was illegal, in that he was arrested in Philadelphia outside of the jurisdiction of the Chester Police Department. Finally, he alleges without further specificity that his trial counsel was ineffective. A hearing was scheduled on the defendant’s post-conviction allegations and the defendant appeared in court represented by counsel from the Delaware County Public Defender’s Office. Counsel for the defendant advised the court that he and his client did not wish to present any testimony but would prefer to have the court consider the Post-Conviction Petition and the answer ... without the benefit of supplemental testimony or evidence. We inquired of the defendant whether or not he wished to proceed with this matter and he advised the court that he was satisfied with his ... counsel and that he did not wish to present any additional evidence at the hearing on the defendant’s petition. After reviewing the petition and the response filed by the Commonwealth, the ... Petition was denied on June 20, 1991.
Opinion, Toal, P.J., February 19, 1992, pages 1-2. None of these assertions are contested by Garnett, either in his Brief or in the pro se Supplemental Brief.
*72Because Garnett has failed to allege that the truth-determining process has been undermined, and because the facts contained in his petition simply could not support such a claim, I would conclude that the sole claim raised in Garnett’s original Brief for Appellant is not cognizable under the PCRA Commonwealth v. Laskaris, supra, Commonwealth v. Tanner, supra. I, therefore, would not consider whether the Statewide Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act had been violated.
I must also respectfully disagree with my colleagues’ decision to review the additional claims found in Garnett’s pro se Supplemental Brief. On this appeal, a counseled brief was filed on behalf of Garnett on April 6, 1992. Prior to that, Garnett’s pro se Supplemental Brief was filed on April 1,1992.
In Commonwealth v. Ellis, 398 Pa.Super. 538, 581 A.2d 595 (1990), appeal allowed 528 Pa. 636, 598 A.2d 992 (1991), we had occasion to consider and revisit this court’s policy regarding pro se briefs. In an en banc decision, we there declared:
We will accept for filing pro se appellate briefs, but we will not review a pro se brief if a counseled brief has been filed, either before, simultaneously with, or after the pro se, due to the judicial confusion and delay that ensues. Because we refuse to play a timing game or that of a mind reader, trying to determine what the pro se really wants, we see no difference as to when the pro se brief is filed in relation to the counseled brief. If a pro se brief is filed in a counseled appeal, we direct the prothonotary to send the pro se brief on to counsel who is best able to determine in her professional judgment which of the pro se’s issues should be presented for our review.
Commonwealth v. Ellis, 398 Pa.Superior Ct. at 550, 581 A.2d at 600 (emphasis in original).
Garnett has alleged the ineffectiveness of his PCRA counsel in his Supplemental Brief. Since PCRA counsel continues to represent Garnett on this appeal, counsel would have been required to petition this court to remand the case to the trial court for a hearing on Garnett’s waiver of his right to counsel and his desire to proceed pro se. Commonwealth v. Ellis, supra, 398 Pa.Superior Ct. at 550, 581 A.2d at 600-601. When *73a three-judge panel of this court further considered Ellis, it held that appointed counsel, upon review of the pro se allegations of ineffectiveness should petition this court for a remand, citing the client’s allegations of ineffectiveness. Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 408 Pa.Super. 9, 14, 596 A.2d 165, 168 (1991). It is only after such a petition for remand that this court, relying on Commonwealth v. McBee, 513 Pa. 255, 261, 520 A.2d 10,13 (1986), may decide whether a remand is in fact required. Id.
I am unaware of any law since Ellis and Lawrence which operates to make the directives contained therein no longer binding on this three-judge panel. I therefore would decline to review the contentions contained in Garnett’s pro se Supplemental Brief until compliance with the dictates of Ellis and Lawrence had been demonstrated.
For all of the above reasons, I must dissent.