Court Opinion

ID: 9950704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 16:16:49.536303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:48.634792
License: Public Domain

J-S44030-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  KINTE L. FORD                                :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 2885 EDA 2022

           Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 28, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-51-CR-0003558-2013

BEFORE:      OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.:                              FILED MARCH 14, 2024

       Appellant Kinte L. Ford appeals from the order denying his Post

Conviction Relief Act1 (PCRA) petition. Appellant argues that his trial counsel

was ineffective. After review, we affirm.

       The PCRA court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history

of this matter as follows:

       [The victim] was Appellant’s girlfriend on January 25, 2013. She
       often stayed at Appellant’s home . . . with him and his mother,
       Gloria Ford. [The victim] testified that Appellant had left the home
       around 11:00 pm on January 25, 2013. In the early morning
       hours of January 26, around 1:00 a.m., Appellant came back
       home while [the victim] was in [Appellant’s] room on the third
       floor, talking with a friend on her cell phone. [The victim] testified
       that Appellant was upset, because “he basically thought I was on
       the phone with a guy.” The couple briefly argued, then Appellant
       hit [the victim] on the face with a closed fist, breaking her glasses.
____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S44030-23

     He told her to sleep on a couch in the first floor living room instead
     of upstairs. [The victim] took her phone and charger downstairs.

     After a few minutes, Appellant came downstairs, took [the
     victim]’s cell phone from her, and returned upstairs. [The victim]
     testified that, about three or four minutes later, Appellant came
     back downstairs and stood in front of [her], cursing and calling
     her a liar. Appellant then punched her and pinned her on the
     couch. She tried to get Appellant off her, telling him to “calm
     down, just stop.” Appellant then “thrust” [the victim] around with
     his hands on her shoulders. At a certain point in the struggle,
     Appellant pulled down [the victim’s] green elastic-waist pants and
     ripped off her panties. He pulled down his own pants and put his
     penis inside [the victim’s] vagina. [The victim] was trying to kick
     Appellant off her body, until she eventually “[got] tired and
     restless of trying to fight [him] off,” and “shut down” at a certain
     point during the assault.

     The commotion woke up Ms. Ford. She came out of her room. In
     her statement to Detective Jenkins, [the victim] said that Ms. Ford
     “came all the way downstairs and got [Appellant] off [her] while
     [they] were having sex.” At trial, however, [the victim] testified
     that Appellant had actually pulled his penis out and “fixed himself’
     before his mother approached the top of the stairs. Ms. Ford came
     downstairs and went into a closet to get “something metal ... a
     bat or a golf club.” Ms. Ford then took [the victim] upstairs to the
     third floor in order to keep her away from Appellant, who was “still
     pissed off flying through the house, pacing back and forth, up and
     down the stairs.” [The victim] sat down on Ms. Ford’s bed.
     Appellant came upstairs and began arguing with his mother as she
     blocked him from entering through the doorway. [The victim]
     stood up behind Ms. Ford. Appellant threw a left fist at [the
     victim’s] right eye, followed by a right fist to her forehead. [The
     victim’s] forehead was cut, causing blood to drip down her face
     and onto her clothes. Ms. Ford told Appellant to leave and took
     [the victim] into the bathroom, where she gave her a rag for the
     blood on her face.

     Ms. Ford exited the bathroom, leaving [the victim] in there and
     closing and locking the door behind her. Shortly thereafter,
     Appellant began hitting the door, eventually busting through it.
     Appellant balled up his fist and made a threatening jump at [the
     victim] before finally leaving the house. [The victim] testified that
     Appellant had his hands in his pockets, and she later told
     detectives that Appellant was holding a gun. On his way out of

                                     -2-
J-S44030-23

     the house, Appellant touched [the victim’s] temple and said “I’ll
     blow your brains out.”

     Once [Appellant] left, Ms. Ford drove [the victim] to her best
     friend Latiya’s house . ... Around 3:30 am, Ms. Ford dropped [the
     victim] off near the McDonald’s ... , about halfway to Latiya’s
     house. Once she got to the house by foot, [the victim] “banged
     on the door” but Latiya did not answer. One of Latiya’s neighbors
     eventually opened the door and let [the victim] sleep in a spare
     room for the night.

     On January 26, uniformed officers brought [the victim] into
     Special Victims’ Unit for an interview. After the interview, [the
     victim] went to Philadelphia Sexual Assault Response Center
     (PSARC) for an examination. Nurse examiner Karen Doughtery
     observed an abrasion, laceration and tenderness on [the victim’s]
     head; swelling, a bruise, and tenderness on her eyes; abrasion
     and tenderness on her mouth; bruising and swelling with
     tenderness to her right eye lower lid; an approximate 1 cm linear
     laceration to the forehead above the eyebrow with tenderness; a
     3 cm scratch-like wound to the left face and orbit (the area that
     surrounds the eye); and an approximate half centimeter abrasion
     to the upper lip and gum.

     Acid phosphatase, a component of human seminal fluid, was
     inconclusive in all the swabs from [the victim’s] sexual assault kit.
     Neither P30 (another component of human seminal fluid) nor
     sperm was found on any of the swabs. A brown stain, similar in
     appearance to blood, was found on the outside of [the victim’s]
     sweat pants. Additionally, microscopic examinations found sperm
     on [the victim’s] torn [underwear].          Lissette Vega of the
     Philadelphia Police DNA lab concluded that Appellant, to a
     reasonable degree of scientific certainty, is the source of the
     sperm. However, there are no tests that can be performed to
     conclusively determine whether a rape occurred, due to the
     physical nature of genital tissue.

     Ms. Ford’s testimony conflicted with [the victim’s] on several
     points. She testified that [the victim] came downstairs from the
     third floor back bedroom (Appellant’s bedroom) around 2:00 am
     and knocked on her door, asking if she could sleep on the couch
     downstairs. Her eyes were bloodshot “like she was drinking.” She
     told Ms. Ford that she couldn’t sleep and that she was waiting for
     Appellant to come home. Ms. Ford testified that [the victim] said
     “I’m waiting for [Appellant] to come in. I know he’s messing with

                                     -3-
J-S44030-23

       another girl ... I’m going to wait to see when he gets in here
       because he’s going to get his.” The two women stayed in Ms.
       Ford’s room talking for 15 to 20 minutes.

       Ms. Ford testified that Appellant came home some time between
       2:15 and 2:30 am. When they heard him come home, [the victim]
       got up off the bed, “ranting and raving” and saying “here comes
       that mother fucker.” Appellant came upstairs and asked what was
       the matter. Ms. Ford testified that she was standing in the
       doorway between [the victim] (in the room) and Appellant (in the
       hallway). Ms. Ford asked Appellant to leave because it was 2:30
       am and she didn’t want any arguments starting in her house.
       Before he walked away, [the victim] reached over Ms. Ford “to try
       and hit him and scratch him.” Ms. Ford testified that she backed
       up and stumbled and fell on [the victim], accidentally causing [the
       victim] to hit her head on a dresser by the bedroom door. Ms.
       Ford took [the victim] to the bathroom and got her a cold rag for
       her face. Ms. Ford testified that she never grabbed a golf club
       from the closet. She also testified that she never saw her son
       downstairs or having intercourse with [the victim] that evening.

PCRA Ct. Op., 3/20/23, at 2-4 (formatting altered and citations omitted).

       Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of rape by forcible

compulsion, aggravated assault, sexual assault, and terroristic threats.2 The

trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of seventeen and one-

half to thirty-five years of incarceration.       Appellant filed a post-sentence

motion for a new trial, which was denied by operation of law on February 11,

2016. On February 17, 2016, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and

this Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v.

Ford, 515 EDA 2016, 2017 WL 2791129 (Pa. Super. filed on Jun. 17, 2017)

(unpublished mem.).

____________________________________________

2  18 Pa.C.S.       §§   3121(a)(1),      2702(a)(1),   3124.1,   and   2706(a)(1),
respectively.

                                           -4-
J-S44030-23

       On February 18, 2018, Appellant filed a timely first PCRA petition. The

PCRA court subsequently appointed counsel, who filed an amended PCRA

petition arguing that direct appeal counsel was ineffective for failing to file a

petition for allowance of appeal to our Supreme Court. On October 24, 2018,

the PCRA court granted Appellant’s PCRA petition and reinstated Appellant’s

right to file a petition for allowance of appeal in the Supreme Court of

Pennsylvania.      On December 31, 2018, Appellant filed his petition for

allowance of appeal, and on April 30, 2019, our Supreme Court denied

Appellant’s petition. Commonwealth v. Ford, 561 EAL 2018, 207 A.3d 908

(Pa. 2019).

       On October 30, 2019, Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition.3 The

PCRA court appointed James Lloyd, Esq. (current counsel), to represent
____________________________________________

3 We note that “the timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite.”

Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 175 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation
omitted). A PCRA petition, “including a second or subsequent petition, shall
be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final[.]” 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 9545(b)(1). Under the PCRA “a judgment becomes final at the conclusion
of direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the
United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of
time for seeking the review.” See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3). Here, Appellant’s
October 30, 2019 PCRA petition was chronologically his second petition, but
because his first PCRA petition resulted in the reinstatement of appellate rights
nunc pro tunc, the October 30, 2019 PCRA petition, was treated as a first
PCRA petition. See Commonwealth v. Vega, 754 A.2d 714, 716 n.3 (Pa.
Super. 2000); see also Commonwealth v. Karanicolas, 836 A.2d 940, 944
(Pa. Super. 2003) (explaining that when a PCRA petitioner’s direct appeal
rights are reinstated nunc pro tunc in a first PCRA petition, a subsequent PCRA
petition will be considered a first PCRA petition for timeliness purposes).
Accordingly, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final for purposes of
the PCRA on Monday, July 29, 2019, ninety days after our Supreme Court
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -5-
J-S44030-23

Appellant. Current counsel filed an amended PCRA petition arguing that trial

counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce evidence of electronic messages

exchanged via Facebook Messenger between Appellant and the victim. See

Amended PCRA Pet., 10/23/20, at ¶¶47-55.             Appellant alleged that the

messages supported his position that he did not sexually assault the victim

and that the victim fabricated the sexual assault. See id. at ¶¶47-55.

       The PCRA court held a hearing on August 24, 2022, and on October 28,

2022, the PCRA court denied Appellant’s PCRA petition.          Appellant filed a

timely notice of appeal, and both the PCRA court and Appellant complied with

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

       On appeal, Appellant presents the following issue:

       Did the PCRA Court err and/or abuse its discretion when it denied
       and dismissed [Appellant’s PCRA petition] seeking a new trial
       based upon a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
       utilize at trial a Facebook message exchange between [A]ppellant
       and [the victim] which was favorable to [Appellant]?

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

       Appellant argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce

messages in which the victim allegedly said that Appellant did not sexually

assault her. Appellant’s Brief at 30-44. Therefore, Appellant concludes that

the PCRA court erred in dismissing his PCRA petition and asserts that this
____________________________________________

denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal on April 30, 2019, when
the time to file a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court
expired. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3); see also U.S. Sup. Ct. Rule 13. As
such, the instant PCRA petition, filed on October 19, 2019, was timely filed.

                                           -6-
J-S44030-23

Court should reverse the PCRA court’s order, vacate Appellant’s judgment of

sentence, and remand this case for a new trial. See id. at 45.

       The Commonwealth responds that although there may have been

messages in which the victim told Appellant “u never assaulted me,” the

messages were consistent with the victim merely saying what Appellant

wanted her to say.             Commonwealth’s Brief at 8-9.       Further, the

Commonwealth asserts that trial counsel had a reasonable basis for declining

to introduce the messages, as they were unequivocally inculpatory and

prejudicial, and prove that, at a minimum, Appellant physically attacked and

beat the victim. See id. at 9. Further, the Commonwealth argues that if trial

counsel had attempted to introduce a version of the messages with the

inculpatory information redacted, the Commonwealth could have introduced

the entire message under Pa.R.E. 106.4 See id.

       Our review of the denial of PCRA relief is limited to “whether the record

supports the PCRA court’s determination and whether the PCRA court’s

decision is free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1, 4

(Pa. Super. 2014) (citations omitted).           “The PCRA court’s credibility

determinations, when supported by the record, are binding on this Court;

however, we apply a de novo standard of review to the PCRA court’s legal

conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 105 A.3d 1257, 1265 (Pa. 2014)
____________________________________________

4 The Rule provides: “If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded

statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any
other part--or any other writing or recorded statement--that in fairness ought
to be considered at the same time.” Pa.R.E. 106.

                                           -7-
J-S44030-23

(citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Davis, 262 A.3d 589, 595

(Pa. Super. 2021) (stating that “[t]his Court grants great deference to the

findings of the PCRA court if the record contains any support for those

findings.” (citation omitted)).

      [T]o 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.

      We have explained that a claim has arguable merit where the
      factual averments, if accurate, could establish cause for relief.
      Whether the facts rise to the level of arguable merit is a legal
      determination.

      The test for deciding whether counsel had a reasonable basis for
      his action or inaction is whether no competent counsel would have
      chosen that action or inaction, or, the alternative, not chosen,
      offered a significantly greater potential chance of success.
      Counsel’s decisions will be considered reasonable if they
      effectuated his client’s interests. We do not employ a hindsight
      analysis in comparing trial counsel’s actions with other efforts he
      may have taken.

      Prejudice is established if there is a reasonable probability that,
      but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have
      been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient
      to undermine confidence in the outcome.

      . . . Moreover, a failure to satisfy any prong of the ineffectiveness
      test requires rejection of the claim of ineffectiveness.

                                      -8-
J-S44030-23

Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1043-44 (Pa. Super. 2019)

(citations omitted and formatting altered).

      The PCRA court addressed Appellant’s claim of ineffectiveness and

concluded that trial counsel had a reasonable basis for deciding not to

introduce the messages:

      [Trial counsel] testified that he received a copy of the [messages]
      from Appellant either before or at the outset of the trial. [Trial
      counsel] also stated that he and Appellant mutually agreed that
      the Facebook conversation would not be beneficial and that they
      should not use it as a trial exhibit. [Trial counsel] explained his
      first rationale for not using the Facebook conversation at trial as
      follows:

         I believe, first and foremost, was the fact that the transcript
         had [Appellant] admitting to assaulting the victim in this
         case. And we did not think that would paint him in the light
         that we wanted the jury to see him in for the trial.
         [Appellant and I] had several conversations about that, and
         he understood that implicitly.

      The Facebook conversation between Appellant and [the victim] did
      contain exchanges which were highly prejudicial to Appellant.
      Appellant told [the victim] that she needed to “tell the truth for
      Daddy” and say nothing happened. In response, [the victim]
      asked Appellant, “can u tell me why u did that to me u really hurt
      me.” [The victim] then told Appellant, “[A]ll I ever tried to do is
      be a gf to you but u just kept wanting to beat on me like I was ur
      worst fuckin enemy.” [The victim] later stated, “[You] fucked my
      face up gave me a bloodclot n a concussion.” [The victim] also
      told Appellant that she wasn’t going to sell herself and asked, “why
      [I] messed my reputation up for u when u want to beat me up put
      ur hands on me everyday n cheat on me dead in my face.”

                                  *    *      *

      Additionally, [trial counsel] testified that his defense strategy was
      focused on more than just the rape charge and that he was
      “operating and defending the case at my client’s direction with the
      narrative that he did not commit any of these acts that she was
      alleging he committed.” Finally, [trial counsel] testified that he

                                      -9-
J-S44030-23

     did not order Appellant not to testify but that he may have advised
     him not to.

     This court thus found the testimony of Appellant’s trial counsel . .
     . to be credible and concluded that he had an objectively
     reasonable basis to not introduce the Facebook conversation at
     Appellant’s trial. [Trial counsel] testified that while the Facebook
     messages may have been beneficial in casting doubt on the [the
     victim’s] testimony regarding the sexual assault, [the messages]
     would have opened the door to other information about Appellant
     that would not have been beneficial for the jury to hear. The
     information that would have been revealed, namely the physical
     assault and history of prostitution, directly contradicted the
     narrative [trial counsel] presented to the jury.

     Appellant’s mother, Gloria Ford, testified that [the victim’s]
     injuries were caused by an accidental fall and not by Appellant.
     [Trial counsel’s] strategy at Appellant’s trial was thus reasonably
     designed to provide a complete defense to all charges instead of
     using the Facebook conversation to effectively concede the
     charges of aggravated assault and terroristic threats in the hopes
     of providing a stronger defense against the charges of rape and
     sexual Assault. [Trial counsel’s] decision to not introduce the
     Facebook conversation was therefore made to best effectuate his
     client’s interests.

PCRA Ct. Op., 3/20/24, at 9-11 (formatting altered and citations omitted).

     After review, we agree with the PCRA court’s conclusions, which are

supported by the record and free from legal error. See Lawson, 90 A.3d at

4. Appellant failed to demonstrate that trial counsel lacked any reasonable

strategic basis for declining to introduce the messages. See Commonwealth

v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 604 (Pa. 2013) (reiterating that “we do not question

whether there were other more logical courses of action which counsel could

have pursued; rather, we must examine whether counsel’s decisions had any

reasonable basis” (citation omitted and emphasis added)).           Therefore,

                                    - 10 -
J-S44030-23

Appellant’s claim fails. See Sandusky, 203 A.3d at 1043-44. On this record,

we affirm.

     Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 3/14/2024

                                   - 11 -