Court Opinion

ID: 9948664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-07 17:14:09.911962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:45.352114
License: Public Domain

J-S07013-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  ROBERT LEE JOHNSON II                        :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1041 MDA 2023

            Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 27, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
                         CP-67-CR-0004399-2018

BEFORE:      LAZARUS, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.:                            FILED MARCH 07, 2024

       Robert Lee Johnson II appeals from the order dismissing his petition

filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-

9546. In addition to a counseled appellate brief, Johnson has filed a pro se

Application for Remand to address his layered claims of ineffective assistance

of counsel with respect to PCRA and trial counsel.        After review, we grant

Johnson’s Application for Remand, vacate the PCRA court’s order, and remand

for further proceedings in accordance with our instructions.

       The trial court set out the factual history of this case, which our Court

adopted on direct appeal. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 241 A.3d 477

(Pa. Super. 2020) (Table). Briefly, Johnson’s conviction stems from a May 22,

2018, shooting in the City of York, Pennsylvania, in which the victim was shot
____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S07013-24

and killed after a bullet entered through his arm and penetrated his heart.

Witnesses identified Johnson as the shooter.     The PCRA court set out the

procedural history of this case as follows:

      [Johnson] was charged with[] murder of the first degree1, murder
      of [the] third degree2, and voluntary manslaughter3. []Richard
      Robinson, Esquire, (hereinafter referred to as “trial counsel”)
      represented [Johnson] during the trial proceedings.
         1 18 [Pa.C.S.A.] § 2502(a)[.]

         2 [Id. at] § 2502(c)[.]

         3 [Id. at] § 2503 — The Commonwealth made an oral
         motion to amend the information to include a charge of
         voluntary manslaughter during the charge conference; the
         parties agreed to the amendment and this Court granted the
         motion.

      Following a jury trial on September 9, 2019, through September
      11, 2019, the jury unanimously convicted [Johnson] of first-
      degree murder.

      On October 21, 2019, [Johnson] was sentenced to life
      incarceration without the possibility of parole. On October 31,
      2019, [Johnson] filed a post-sentence motion that this court
      denied on November 6, 2019.

      On November 18, 2019, Korey Leslie, Esquire, on behalf of
      [Johnson], filed a notice of appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior
      Court. On October 29, 2020, the Pennsylvania Superior Court
      affirmed the judgment of sentence.

      On November 29, 2021, a [PCRA] Petition [] was filed by Todd M.
      Mosser, Esquire, on behalf of [Johnson]. On December 21, 2021,
      [Johnson] filed a pro se motion for PCRA [relief]. On March 16,
      2022, Attorney Mosser filed a motion for continuance and request
      to file an amended PCRA to incorporate issues raised in
      [Johnson’s] pro se PCRA [petition,] which was granted on March
      18, 2022. On April 29, 2022, Attorney Mosser filed a motion to
      withdraw, at [Johnson]’s request, citing irreconcilable differences
      and that a meaningful attorney-client relationship no longer
      existed. On July 1, 2022, this court granted the motion and
      allowed Attorney Mosser to withdraw as counsel. On July 11,

                                     -2-
J-S07013-24

      2022, this court appointed Aaron Holt, Esquire, as PCRA counsel
      for [Johnson]. On August 31, 2022, Attorney Holt filed a motion
      to withdraw []. On September 8, 2022, Attorney Holt’s motion to
      withdraw was granted and Brandy Hoke, Esquire, was appointed
      PCRA counsel.

      [Attorney Hoke filed a] supplemental PCRA petition [] on
      December 8, 2022. A second supplemental PCRA petition was
      filed on February 15, 2023. On April 4, 2023, a hearing was held.
      [Johnson] appeared by Zoom [] from SCI Forest. At that time,
      Attorney Hoke indicated to the court that, subsequent to lengthy
      discussions with [Johnson] regarding the issues raised in his pro
      se PCRA petition and disagreements as to the merits of those
      issues, it was her intention to proceed on a single issue that is the
      claim involving ineffective assistance of [trial] counsel for failure
      to call a witness, Ashely Rodriguez, to testify.

      This court questioned [Johnson] as to whether he wished to
      proceed with the court-appointed counsel that had reviewed the
      merits of his pro se PCRA petition, finding all but one claim
      meritless[,] or [whether he wished to] proceed unrepresented and
      be colloquied by the court on his waiver of counsel. [Johnson]
      indicated he understood his options and that he wanted to have
      his witness testify[,] but also raise his other issues and preserve
      them for appeal. This court asked [Johnson], several times, if he
      wished to move forward with counsel and each time he answered
      in the affirmative.

Opinion in Support of Order Denying Petitioner’s PCRA Petition, 6/27/23, at 1-

4 (unpaginated) (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

      On April 20, 2023, Attorney Hoke, on Johnson’s behalf, filed a motion

for a hearing on Johnson’s request for new counsel. The PCRA court held a

hearing on June 8, 2023, after which the court reserved a decision on both

the pending PCRA petition and Johnson’s request for new counsel until the

transcript from the April 4, 2023 hearing was completed. On June 27, 2023,

the PCRA court denied Johnson’s PCRA petition, did not address Johnson’s

request for new counsel, and issued an opinion in support of its order.

                                      -3-
J-S07013-24

       On July 22, 2023, Johnson filed a timely notice of appeal, followed by a

timely   court-ordered    Pa.R.A.P.    1925(b)    concise   statement    of   errors

complained of on appeal. Johnson raises five claims of PCRA court error and

one claim, with three sub-claims, of layered ineffective assistance of counsel.

See Appellant’s Brief, at 4-5. Johnson’s claims with respect to the alleged

ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel is as follows:

       Whether PCRA [c]ounsel, [Attorney] Hoke[] was ineffective for
       failing to raise additional claims on behalf of [Johnson], specifically
       as follows:

          a. Whether [t]rial [c]ounsel was ineffective for failing to
          impeach the testimony of Mary Schroeder and Wendell
          Johnston with photographs taken by [t]rial [c]ounsel’s
          private investigator?

          b. Whether [t]rial [c]ounsel was ineffective for failing to
          object to misrepresentation of facts stated by the
          Commonwealth in [its] opening statements?

          c. Whether [t]rial [c]ounsel was ineffective for failing to
          subpoena other witnesses identified in the discovery packet,
          who may have been beneficial to the defense?

 Id.

       In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the PCRA court stated that a review of the

record is sufficient to allow for the disposition of Johnson’s layered ineffective

assistance of counsel claims. Because counsel is unable to assert her own

ineffectiveness, Attorney Hoke reserved the issue. See Appellant’s Brief, at

19. Prior to filing his appellate brief, Johnson filed a pro se application for

remand so that new counsel may be appointed to pursue his layered

ineffective assistance of counsel claims.         See Application for Remand,

                                        -4-
J-S07013-24

10/25/23.     The Commonwealth has not responded to the application for

remand.

      We begin our review with Johnson’s application for remand.              Our

Supreme Court has held that a PCRA petitioner may “raise claims of PCRA

counsel’s ineffectiveness at the first opportunity to do so, even if on appeal.”

Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d 381, 401 (Pa. 2021). By allowing

PCRA counsel ineffectiveness claims to be raised for the first time on collateral

appeal, the Bradley Court recognized that remand may be necessary:

      In some instances, the record before the appellate court will be
      sufficient to allow for disposition of any newly-raised
      ineffectiveness claims. [Commonwealth v.] Holmes, 79 A.3d
      [562,] 577 [(Pa. 2013)]. 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,” [Commonwealth v.] Hall, 872 A.2d [1177,]
      1182 [(Pa. 2005)]; 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[.]” [Commonwealth v.] Grant, 813 A.2d
      [726,] 740 n.2 (Pa. 2002) (Saylor, J., concurring).

Id. at 402.     We are not tasked with developing the record, but rather

“appellate courts will have the ability to grant or deny relief on straightforward

claims, as well as the power to remand to the PCRA court for the development

of the record.” Id. at 402-3. The appropriate forum for the development of

an evidentiary record on PCRA claims is the PCRA court, as the appellate

                                      -5-
J-S07013-24

courts do not serve as factfinding courts. See Commonwealth v. Shaw,

247 A.3d 1008, 1017 (Pa. 2021).

       In the instant case, Johnson is currently represented by the PCRA

counsel whose effectiveness he wishes to challenge. Thus, we conclude that

he has complied with the requirement to raise this issue at the first

opportunity. Additionally, given that he is still represented by PCRA counsel,

Johnson has not had the opportunity to develop his claims before the PCRA

court1 or this Court. While Johnson’s claims are underdeveloped, they do not

appear to be simply boilerplate assertions.2 See Bradley, supra. Because

we are not tasked with developing the record, nor are we a factfinding court,

we grant Johnson’s application for remand to the PCRA court and vacate the

order dismissing his PCRA petition.            Upon remand, the PCRA court shall

appoint new counsel to file an amended petition on Johnson’s behalf, wherein

____________________________________________

1 The PCRA court highlights Attorney Hoke’s statement during the evidentiary

hearing that she “engaged in lengthy discussions with [Johnson] about his
case and the claims he wished to raise.” Trial Court Opinion, 10/17/23, at 7;
see also N.T. PCRA Hearing, 4/4/23, at 4. Such a statement is not sufficient
to determine and dispose of Johnson’s claims.

2 Johnson’s ineffectiveness claims are layered, and, if trial counsel was
ineffective with respect to these claims and PCRA counsel was similarly
ineffective, there was no prior opportunity to develop the record with respect
to this issue. Moreover, we note that our review of the evidentiary hearing
transcript indicates that trial counsel was not questioned by PCRA counsel as
to photographs taken by a private investigator and what they contained,
whether there were misrepresentations by the Commonwealth in opening
statements to which trial counsel should have objected, or why trial counsel
did or did not consider calling eyewitnesses to testify at trial to bolster
Johnson’s defense.

                                           -6-
J-S07013-24

counsel shall more fully develop the ineffectiveness claims suggested from the

current appeal. Thereafter, the PCRA court must address any claims properly

raised in the amended petition.

      Order vacated; case remanded for further proceedings consistent with

the dictates of this memorandum. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 03/07/2024

                                    -7-