Court Opinion

ID: 4442370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-09-27 18:12:00.864964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:56.337222
License: Public Domain

J-S51025-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :         PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
    RANDY TAFT                                 :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :       No. 399 MDA 2019

            Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 18, 2019
                In the Court of Common Pleas of Tioga County
             Criminal Division at No(s): CP-59-CR-0000152-1987

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., GANTMAN, P.J.E., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.:                     FILED SEPTEMBER 27, 2019

        Appellant, Randy Taft, appeals from the order entered in the Tioga

County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his serial petition filed pursuant

to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 We affirm.

        In its opinion, the PCRA court set forth the relevant facts of this case.

Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.          Procedurally, on April 18,

1988, Appellant entered an open plea of nolo contendere to two counts of

murder generally.       The court held a degree-of-guilt hearing that day, and

found Appellant guilty of one count of first-degree murder and one count of

third-degree murder. The court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment for

the first-degree murder conviction, and imposed a consecutive 10-to-20 year

____________________________________________

1   42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S51025-19

sentence for the third-degree murder conviction.        Appellant did not obtain

direct review.

      Between 1990 and 2012, Appellant unsuccessfully litigated multiple

PCRA petitions. In 2014 and 2015, Appellant received two letters from the

Department of Justice (“DOJ”), discussing a FBI investigation into the

examiner who performed the hair analysis in Appellant’s case and indicating

the hair analysis in Appellant’s case contained erroneous statements.

Appellant filed the current, serial pro se PCRA petition on January 26, 2015,

and amended counseled petitions on June 1, 2015 and August 24, 2015,

claiming the DOJ letters constituted “newly-discovered facts.”         Appellant

insisted he would have gone to trial if he had known the hair analysis

contained erroneous statements and was inadmissible.

      On October 20, 2015, the court issued notice of its intent to dismiss the

petition without a hearing, per Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. The court dismissed the

petition as untimely on January 29, 2016. This Court affirmed on October 13,

2017. See Commonwealth v. Taft, 179 A.3d 562 (Pa.Super. 2017). On

March 21, 2018, our Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further

consideration, in light of Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 643 Pa. 216, 173 A.3d
617 (2017) (holding FBI’s concession of widespread error in microscopic hair

analysis constituted newly-discovered fact and date of FBI’s concession

triggered   statutory   window   to   submit   timely    PCRA    claim).    See

Commonwealth v. Taft, 645 Pa. 745, 182 A.3d 990 (2018) (per curiam).

                                      -2-
J-S51025-19

On remand, this Court reversed the January 29, 2016 order denying PCRA

relief and remanded for a hearing on the merits of Appellant’s underlying

after-discovered evidence claim. See Commonwealth v. Taft, 194 A.3d 686

(Pa.Super. 2018).

      The court held a PCRA hearing on December 14, 2018.            Appellant

testified at the hearing, inter alia, that defense counsel told him the FBI had

matched his hair sample with evidence collected at the crime scene and the

Commonwealth was going to seek the death penalty. Appellant said defense

counsel advised him to enter a plea of nolo contendere in light of the

incriminating hair analysis evidence to avoid the possibility of the death

penalty. Appellant claimed he would have probably gone to trial if he knew

the hair analysis evidence was inadmissible.       (See N.T. PCRA Hearing,

12/14/18, at 4-7; R.R. at 65a-68a). The Commonwealth did not present any

witnesses. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court gave the parties the

opportunity to file briefs.

      Following briefing, the PCRA court denied relief on February 13, 2019.

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on March 6, 2019. On March 22,

2019, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant complied.

      Appellant raises one issue for our review:

         SHOULD [APPELLANT] BE PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW HIS
         PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE BECAUSE [OF] THE AFTER-
         DISCOVERED FACT THAT HAIR ANALYSIS EVIDENCE THAT
         WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AT TRIAL WAS

                                     -3-
J-S51025-19

         ERRONEOUS BECAUSE IT EXCEEDED THE LIMITS OF
         SCIENCE AND WAS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE?

(Appellant’s Brief at 2).

      Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to

examining whether the record evidence supports the court’s determination

and whether the court’s decision is free of legal error. Commonwealth v.

Ford, 947 A.2d 1251 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 598 Pa. 779, 959 A.2d
319 (2008). This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA

court if the record contains any support for those findings. Commonwealth

v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 593 Pa. 754, 932
A.2d 74 (2007). If the record supports a post-conviction court’s credibility

determination, it is binding on the appellate court.      Commonwealth v.

Dennis, 609 Pa. 442, 17 A.3d 297 (2011).

      To obtain relief on a substantive after-discovered-evidence claim under

the PCRA once jurisdiction is established, a petitioner must demonstrate: (1)

the evidence has been discovered after trial and it could not have been

obtained at or prior to trial through reasonable diligence; (2) the evidence is

not cumulative; (3) it is not being used solely to impeach credibility; and (4)

it would likely compel a different verdict. Commonwealth v. Washington,

592 Pa. 698, 927 A.2d 586 (2007). See also Commonwealth v. Small, ___

Pa. ___, 189 A.3d 961 (2018) (discussing quality of proposed “new evidence”

and stating new evidence must be of higher grade or character than previously

presented on material issue to support grant of new trial).

                                     -4-
J-S51025-19

      After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable John B. Leete,

we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief.      The PCRA court opinion

comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented.

(See Opinion and Order on Amended PCRA Petition following Remand, filed

February 13, 2019, at 7-8) (finding: Appellant’s claim, that he would not have

entered nolo contendere plea if he had known hair analysis used in his case

was inadmissible, lacks merit; given vast evidence against Appellant

demonstrated at     his preliminary hearing and degree-of-guilt hearing

immediately following plea, Appellant’s decision to enter plea was based on all

evidence Commonwealth had against Appellant, not just hair analysis

evidence, which was only small part; Appellant failed to satisfy after-

discovered evidence test to warrant PCRA relief). Accordingly, we affirm on

the basis of the PCRA court’s opinion.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 09/27/2019

                                     -5-
                                                                               Circulated 09/13/2019 11:52 AM

COMMONWEALTH OF                              :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
PENNSYLVANIA                                 :OF TIOGA COUNTY, PENNSYLVA�.I�,.,.        FILED
                                                                               !   iUt:A COfliny
                                                                                            � l            1 '   •'
                                                                                                                      oA
                                                                                                                      I   r,
Vs.                                          :No. 152 of 1987
                                                                            . ZC 19 FEB 13 AH 9; 4 3
                                                                                     . :''' ·.,1 • ....... ,
RANDY TAFT                                    :CRIMINAL DIVISION               .; ,':',1          IARY &
                                                                                           [!Jr-:_:J
                                                                             · l.,L[:rFisher, supra.

This is in accordance with the applicable provision of the PCRA, section 9543 A2 (Vi).

       While the Commonwealth persists in arguing that the present PCRA petition is untimely,

that issue was dealt with by the Superior Court in its memorandum decision of July 18, 2018 and

will not be discussed further.

       Under all ofthe facts and circumstances presented, defendant has wholly failed to justify

his position that he should be able to withdraw his pleas. An appropriate order follows.

                                                8