Court Opinion

ID: 9387679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 17:07:44.050008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:15.082631
License: Public Domain

J-S05023-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    ANDRE BRANCH-SAMUELS                       :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 131 WDA 2022

              Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 21, 2021
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-02-CR-0006189-2016

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                              FILED: APRIL 18, 2023

        Andre Branch-Samuels appeals from the order, entered in the Court of

Common Pleas of Allegheny County, dismissing his petition filed pursuant to

the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.         After

careful review, we vacate the order and remand for further proceedings.

        On April 1, 2016, Dontae Thompson, while driving his vehicle, was

fatally shot multiple times by someone driving a white Ford Focus.      Police

recovered two surveillance videos, which captured the shooting. Relying on

this evidence, detectives identified and arrested Branch-Samuels.     Branch-

Samuels was charged with first-degree murder,1 carrying a firearm without a

____________________________________________

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501(a).
J-S05023-23

license,2 tampering with or fabricating physical evidence,3 and possession of

a firearm prohibited.4

        On November 8, 2017, a jury convicted Branch-Samuels on the charges

of first-degree murder, carrying a firearm without a license, and tampering

with or fabricating physical evidence.5              On January 10, 2018, the court

sentenced Branch-Samuels to life imprisonment for first-degree murder and

to a consecutive forty-to-eighty months of incarceration for carrying a firearm

without a license.6

        Branch-Samuels filed a post-sentence motion, which the court denied

on March 20, 2018. Branch-Samuels filed a timely notice of appeal. On July

26,    2019,    this    Court   affirmed       the   judgment    of   sentence.   See

Commonwealth v. Branch-Samuels, 548 WDA 2018 (Pa. Super. filed July

26, 2019) (unpublished memorandum decision).                    Branch-Samuels filed a

petition for allowance of appeal, which our Supreme Court denied on March

24, 2020.

____________________________________________

2   Id. § 6106(a)(1).

3   Id. § 4910(1).

4   Id. § 6501(a)(1).

5   The charge of possession of a firearm prohibited was nolle prossed.

6Branch-Samuels received no further penalty for the tampering with evidence
conviction.

                                           -2-
J-S05023-23

       Branch-Samuels filed his first PCRA petition on December 11, 2020, in

which he alleged after-discovered evidence in the form of a new witness,

Tijuan Marquis Brown. In response, the Commonwealth filed an answer, and,

on April 13, 2021, the PCRA court gave notice of its intent to dismiss under

Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. The PCRA court dismissed this petition on June 21, 2021.

Branch-Samuels filed a notice of appeal on July 21, 2021, and the trial court

granted a petition for extension of time to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925 concise

statement of errors complained of on appeal, which Branch-Samuels filed on

October 12, 2021. The PCRA court issued an opinion on October 28, 2021.

On November 4, 2021, this Court dismissed the appeal for failure to file a

docketing statement. On December 22, 2021, Branch-Samuels filed a second

PCRA petition seeking the reinstatement of his collateral appellate rights nunc

pro tunc, alleging a breakdown in court proceedings.7 The PCRA court granted

that petition and reinstated Branch-Samuels' collateral appellate rights nunc

pro tunc on December 23, 2021. On January 24, 2022, Branch-Samuels filed

a notice of appeal to this Court. Both Branch-Samuels and the PCRA court

have complied with Rule 1925.

____________________________________________

7 On July 26, 2021, after his first notice of appeal was filed, Branch-Samuels
obtained new counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel entered his
appearance; however, Branch-Samuels’s new counsel did not receive any
correspondence from this Court, which resulted in a failure to file the afore-
mentioned docketing statement and, thus, a breakdown in the operation of
the Court. All correspondence had been sent to Branch-Samuels’ previous
PCRA counsel.

                                           -3-
J-S05023-23

      Branch-Samuels raises five issues for our consideration:

      1. Whether Branch-Samuels is entitled to relief based on after[-
         ]discovered evidence indicating that [] Brown would testify that
         Branch-Samuels was not the shooter[.]

      2. Whether PCRA counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by
         not challenging trial counsel’s failure to object to the jury instruction
         regarding taped inconsistent statements by Jenea Price[.]

      3. Whether PCRA counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel for
         not challenging trial counsel’s failure to make a timely objection that
         Detective Judd Emery was nonresponsive, and failure to request a
         curative instruction or that the testimony be stricken from the
         record[.]

      4. Whether PCRA counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by
         not challenging trial counsel’s failure to object to the
         Commonwealth’s closing argument when the prosecution
         commented that Shawn Yancey and Todd Kenney were
         Commonwealth witnesses that became unavailable, implying Branch-
         Samuels had something to do with their unavailability?

      5. Whether PCRA counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel for
         failing to challenge trial counsel’s failure to fully understand what
         evidence was given to trial counsel concerning the video footage of
         Elmore Square?

Brief for Appellant, at i-ii (reworded for clarity).

      Preliminarily, we observe that Branch-Samuels has raised his ineffective

assistance of PCRA counsel claims for the first time on appeal, and that the

Honorable Jill E. Rangos, in her opinion, has requested that we remand the

matter for a hearing on these claims. See PCRA Court Opinion, 3/24/22, at

6. Specifically, the PCRA court found the allegations to “provide more than

mere ‘boilerplate assertions of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness,’” and concluded

that remand is necessary to further develop the record to determine if they

                                       -4-
J-S05023-23

have merit. Id. Additionally, Judge Rangos found that Branch-Samuels’ after-

discovered evidence claim was meritless because the testimony from Brown,

who would have testified that Branch-Samuels was not the shooter, merely

served to impeach two Commonwealth witnesses. Id. at 5. Furthermore, the

court determined that Brown’s testimony would not have affected the outcome

of trial because it would have been considered in the context of the entirety

of the Commonwealth’s case which, as noted by this Court in Branch-

Samuels, supra, was supported by corroborative evidence. Id.

      Branch-Samuels raises his ineffective assistance of counsel claims for

the first time on appeal. Accordingly, we must determine whether they have

been waived. Recently, our Supreme Court has permitted “petitioner[s] to

raise claims of ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel at the first opportunity

[after obtaining new counsel or acting pro se], even if on appeal.”

Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d 381, 402 (Pa. 2021).               Instantly,

Branch-Samuels challenges his PCRA counsel’s failure to challenge his trial

counsel’s ineffective assistance.     See Brief for Appellant, at 15-18.

Additionally, as we noted supra, Branch-Samuels is now represented by new

counsel.   Therefore, pursuant to our Supreme Court’s holding in Bradley,

Branch-Samuels has properly raised these claims for our review.           See

Bradley, supra.

      Next, we turn to whether remand is proper in this case. The absence of

a developed record requires this Court to engage in fact-finding, which is not

                                     -5-
J-S05023-23

an appellate court’s function.        Commonwealth v. Shaw, 247 A.3d 1008,

1017 (Pa. 2021). The PCRA court is “the appropriate—and, indeed, the only—

forum for the evidentiary and factual development” of PCRA claims.           Id.,

quoting Commonwealth v. Koehler, 229 A.3d 915, 937 (Pa. 2020).

Additionally, our Supreme Court in Bradley acknowledged that remand may

be proper in certain cases where ineffectiveness claims are raised on appeal

in the first instance:

       In some instances, the record before the appellate court will be
       sufficient to allow for disposition of any newly-raised
       ineffectiveness claims. However, in other cases, the appellate
       court may need to remand to the PCRA court for further
       development of the record and for the PCRA court to consider such
       claims as an initial matter. Consistent with our prior case law, to
       advance a request for remand, a petition would be required to
       provide more than mere boilerplate assertions of PCRA counsel’s
       ineffectiveness. . .; however, where there are material facts at
       issue concerning [claims challenging counsel’s stewardship] and
       relief is not plainly unavailable as a matter of law, the remand
       should be afforded[.]

Bradley, 261 A.3d at 402.

       In his brief, Branch-Samuels addresses each of the three prongs of the

ineffectiveness of counsel test,8 but he has not had the opportunity to obtain

____________________________________________

8 To successfully claim ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must
prove the following: (1) a defendant must show his claim to be of arguable
merit; (2) that defense counsel had no reasonable basis for undertaking or
failing to undertake the act or omission in question; and (3) that there is a
reasonable probability that but for the act or omission in question the outcome
of the proceeding would have been different. Commonwealth v. Douglas,
645 A.2d 226, 230-31 (Pa. 1994).

                                           -6-
J-S05023-23

prior counsel’s testimony regarding the “strategic basis” for their actions. See

Brief for Appellant, at 27; see also Douglas, supra.             Likewise, as noted

above, the PCRA court has not had the opportunity to hold a hearing on the

issues and has requested that we remand because these claims appear to be

more than boilerplate assertions of ineffectiveness. See PCRA Court Opinion,

3/24/22, at 6; Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1).

       We conclude that the record before us is insufficient to allow for

disposition of the ineffectiveness claims that Branch-Samuels raises.

Accordingly, we agree with Judge Rangos, and we remand this case to the

PCRA court for Branch-Samuels to create an evidentiary record as it relates to

his ineffectiveness claims.9 See Bradley, supra; Koehler, supra.

       Order    vacated;     case   remanded     with   instructions.   Jurisdiction

relinquished.

____________________________________________

9 Regarding Branch-Samuels’ after-discovered evidence claim, we decline to
address it at this time. If Branch-Samuels’ ineffectiveness claims are found
to have merit and, a new trial granted, he may be permitted to present Brown
as a witness. Therefore, ruling on the after-discovered evidence claim at this
juncture is premature and, quite possibly, moot.

                                           -7-
J-S05023-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/18/2023

                          -8-