Court Opinion

ID: 9375741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-28 18:06:50.182168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:01.365469
License: Public Domain

J-S03010-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 EDMOND J. CALLOWAY                       :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :   No. 957 EDA 2022

            Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 1, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-51-CR-0509401-1995

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 EDMOND J. CALLOWAY                       :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :   No. 958 EDA 2022

            Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 1, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-51-CR-0509411-1995

BEFORE: BOWES, J., McCAFFERY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.:                        FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2023

      Edmond J. Calloway appeals from the order that dismissed his fifth

petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). Also before

us is the application of Coley O. Reynolds, Esquire, to withdraw as counsel

pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and
J-S03010-23

Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc). We

grant counsel’s application and affirm.

      This Court provided the following summary of the underlying facts in

adjudicating the appeal from the denial of Appellant’s fourth PCRA petition:

      On April 8, 1995, [Appellant] went to a speakeasy in search of
      Tyrone [“Reds”] Hill, where, upon arrival, he repeatedly struck
      Hill’s cousin, Richard McCray, with a baseball bat, rendering him
      unconscious.      [Appellant] then demanded to know [Reds]’s
      whereabouts. Shortly thereafter, when [Reds] approached the
      speakeasy in his car, [Appellant] fired three shots into the vehicle,
      causing [Reds] to crash.        [Appellant] then ran up to the
      automobile and fired three shots inside, killing [Reds].

Commonwealth v. Calloway, 227 A.3d 430 (Pa.Super. 2020) (non-

precedential decision at 1) (cleaned up). We affirmed Appellant’s judgment

of sentence on March 23, 1998, and none of his first four PCRA petitions

resulted in relief. See id. at 2-3 (summarizing history of first three petitions),

10 (affirming dismissal of Appellant’s fourth petition).

      The PCRA court summarized the litigation of the fifth petition, at issue

in this appeal, as follows:

             On April 7, 2020, [Appellant] filed the instant pro se PCRA
      petition. In his petition, [Appellant] raised the following three
      claims:

            (1) The prosecution never established the elements
            for a prima facie case for aggravated assault in
            accordance with 18 Pa. C.S. § 2702(a), or 18 Pa.C.S.
            § 2302.

            (2) [Appellant] intends on presenting to the court
            documented evidence supporting Richard McCray’s
            new declaration as being the truth.

                                      -2-
J-S03010-23

            (3) [Appellant] also intends on presenting evidence to
            show the prosecution never presented a physician,
            medical records, or any evidence to support the
            charge for aggravated assault against [Appellant].

            The PCRA court denied [Appellant]’s first and third claims,
      which challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support
      [Appellant]’s conviction for aggravated assault, on the ground that
      they were previously litigated and therefore not cognizable under
      the PCRA. However, the court granted [Appellant] an evidentiary
      hearing on [Appellant]’s second claim, which was premised upon
      the recantation of trial witness Richard McCray. Pursuant to Rule
      904(D) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court
      appointed [Attorney Reynolds], to represent [Appellant] at the
      hearing.2 On March 1, 2022, following an evidentiary hearing, the
      court dismissed the fifth petition.
            ______
            2 Rule 904(D) provides that on second or subsequent PCRA

            petitions, an indigent pro se defendant is entitled to
            appointed counsel if an evidentiary hearing is necessary.

PCRA Court Opinion, 6/6/22, at 2-3 (cleaned up).             Specifically, after

concluding that Appellant’s petition was timely filed following his discovery of

new facts previously unknown to him, the PCRA court held that Appellant’s

substantive after-discovered evidence claim merited no relief. See id. at 5-7

(citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii)).

      Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and the PCRA court directed

him to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on

appeal. Instead, Attorney Reynolds filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 19525(c)(4) a

statement of intent to file a Turner/Finley brief.           The PCRA court

subsequently filed an opinion in support of its dismissal of Appellant’s PCRA

petition.

                                        -3-
J-S03010-23

       In this Court, counsel filed a petition to withdraw along with his no-merit

letter pursuant to Turner and Finley. Before we consider the merits of the

issues raised on appeal, we must determine whether counsel has followed the

required procedure, which we have summarized as follows:

              When presented with a brief pursuant to Turner/Finley, we
       first determine whether the brief meets the procedural
       requirements of Turner/Finley. A Turner/Finley brief must: (1)
       detail the nature and extent of counsel’s review of the case; (2)
       list each issue the petitioner wishes to have reviewed; and (3)
       explain counsel’s reasoning for concluding that the petitioner’s
       issues are meritless. Counsel must also send a copy of the brief
       to the petitioner, along with a copy of the petition to withdraw,
       and inform the petitioner of the right to proceed pro se or to retain
       new counsel. If the brief meets these requirements, we then
       conduct an independent review of the petitioner’s issues

Commonwealth v. Knecht, 219 A.3d 689, 691 (Pa.Super. 2019) (internal

citations omitted).

       We are satisfied from the review of counsel’s petition and no-merit letter

that counsel has substantially complied with the technical requirements of

Turner and Finley. Counsel has detailed his review of the case and the issues

Appellant wishes to raise and has explained why the issues lack merit.

Counsel also sent copies of his no-merit letter and application to withdraw to

Appellant and advised him of his immediate right to proceed pro se or with

privately-retained counsel.1           Accordingly, we proceed to consider the

substance of the appeal.

____________________________________________

1   Appellant has not filed a response or a pro se brief.

                                           -4-
J-S03010-23

      We begin our independent evaluation of the merits of Appellant’s issues

with a review of the applicable law.     As our Supreme Court summarized:

             When [an appellate court] reviews an order dismissing or
      denying a PCRA petition, its standard of review is whether the
      findings of the PCRA court are supported by the record and are
      free from legal error. The PCRA court’s credibility determinations,
      when supported by the record, are binding on [the appellate
      court]. Appellant has the burden to persuade [the appellate court]
      that the PCRA court erred and that such error requires relief.
      Lastly, it is well settled that [the appellate court] may affirm a
      valid judgment or order for any reason appearing as of record.

Commonwealth v. Reid, 259 A.3d 395, 405-06 (Pa. 2021) (cleaned up).

      Counsel first addresses Appellant’s after-discovered evidence claim

premised upon the recantation testimony of Richard McCray. The following

legal principles apply to that claim:

      After-discovered evidence is a recognized ground for relief under
      the PCRA. Relief is due when the proponent can demonstrate that
      the evidence: (1) could not have been obtained prior to the
      conclusion of the trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence; (2)
      is not merely corroborative or cumulative; (3) will not be used
      solely to impeach the credibility of a witness; and (4) would likely
      result in a different verdict if a new trial were granted. Failure to
      satisfy any one prong is fatal to the claim.

Commonwealth v. Crumbley, 270 A.3d 1171, 1178 (Pa.Super. 2022)

(cleaned up).

      Specific   to   after-discovered   evidence   claims   involving   recanting

witnesses, our Supreme Court has acknowledged the inherent limitations of

recantation testimony, which it characterized as “extremely unreliable.”

Commonwealth v. Small, 189 A.3d 961, 977 (Pa. 2018). The Hight Court

explained:

                                         -5-
J-S03010-23

     [T]here is no less reliable form of proof, especially where it
     involves an admission of perjury. For that reason, we have
     emphasized that, when addressing an after-discovered evidence
     claim premised on recantation testimony, the PCRA court must, in
     the first instance, assess the credibility and significance of the
     recantation in light of the evidence as a whole. Unless the PCRA
     court is satisfied that the recantation is true, it should deny a new
     trial.

Commonwealth v. Small, 189 A.3d 961, 977 (Pa. 2018) (cleaned up).

     In the instant case, Mr. McCray testified at Appellant’s 1996 trial that he

was standing outside of the speakeasy, when a car pulled up, Appellant

jumped out, Appellant and two other men approached Mr. McCray, and

Appellant beat Mr. McCray in the head with an aluminum baseball bat about

three times.    See N.T. Trial, 3/22/96 (Afternoon session), at 86-88.

Afterwards, Appellant went upstairs into the speakeasy, and Mr. McCray saw

that Appellant and one of the other men had guns. Id. at 89-90.

     In   January   2020,   Mr.   McCray     was   speaking    to   his   cousin

Laquisha McCain, who is Appellant’s niece. Ms. McCain lamented not knowing

Appellant since he went to prison when she was young, which prompted

Mr. McCray to confess to her that Appellant was innocent and promise to do

what he could to get Appellant out of prison. See N.T. PCRA Hearing, 3/1/22,

at 19-20. Thereafter, Mr. McCray was approached by an investigator hired by

Appellant and offered a written statement.         Therein, he indicated that

Appellant did not hit him with the bat, but merely pushed him and someone

else punched him and knocked him out. See Brief in Support of PCRA Petition,

                                     -6-
J-S03010-23

4/7/20, at 13-14. Further, Mr. McCray asserted that Appellant did not have a

gun on the night in question. Id. at 14.

       At the outset of his testimony at the PCRA hearing, Mr. McCray

disavowed some of the statements attributed to him in the interview with the

investigator, offering corrections thereto concerning such matters as the

amount Mr. McCray had to drink on the night in question and who informed

him that Reds had been shot. See N.T. PCRA Hearing, 3/1/22, at 12. Mr.

McCray then proceeded to reaffirm to the PCRA court that, inter alia, Appellant

did not assault him or possess a gun on that night in 1995.          On cross-

examination, Mr. McCray exhibited a selective memory and offered further

testimony that was inconsistent with his statement to the investigator. See,

e.g., id. at 41 (claiming that he was both struck with a bat and a fist).

       At the conclusion of the hearing, the PCRA court stated its findings of

facts and conclusions of law. The court indicated that Appellant acted with

due diligence in discovering Mr. McCray’s recantation, but that Appellant’s

after-discovered evidence claim did not merit relief.2 The court found that

hearing Mr. McCray’s testimony compelled it to find him incredible. The PCRA

court explained that Mr. McCray’s inconsistent versions of events, even

____________________________________________

2  The Commonwealth does not dispute on appeal the PCRA court’s finding
that Appellant’s petition was timely filed in accordance with 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 9545(b)(1)(ii) (stating newly discovered facts exception to the PCRA’s one-
year time bar). Our review of the certified record did not give us cause to
disturb the ruling that the PCRA court had jurisdiction to address the merits
of Appellant’s substantive claim based upon the new facts.

                                           -7-
J-S03010-23

between the statement he gave the investigator not long before the hearing,

caused it to simply not believe his testimony. Id. at 80-81. The PCRA court

alternatively concluded that Mr. McCray’s recantation was unlikely to lead to

a different result, especially as to Appellant’s murder conviction. Id. at 81.

See also PCRA Court Opinion, 6/6/22, at 8 (detailing the other evidence of

Appellant’s guilt).

      The PCRA court’s credibility determinations are supported by the

certified record, and we are therefore bound by those findings. See Reid,

supra at 405-06. As discussed above, Mr. McCray displayed a convenient

ability to testify to details of events favorable to Appellant, but the inability to

recollect others when cross-examined about prior versions of his story.

Moreover, Mr. McCray failed to maintain a consistent narrative of events at

the PCRA hearing itself. Since the record support’s the PCRA’s finding that

the recantation was not true, it properly denied Appellant relief. See Small,

supra at 977 (“Unless the PCRA court is satisfied that the recantation is true,

it should deny a new trial.” (cleaned up)).

      The two remaining claims Appellant raised in his PCRA petition

concerned the adequacy of the Commonwealth’s evidence to establish the

aggravated assault      conviction.     In   particular, he   asserted that     the

Commonwealth failed to establish that Mr. McCray suffered bodily injury, that

Mr. McCray’s medical records document no head injury, and, therefore, “the

                                       -8-
J-S03010-23

verdict is not supported by the weight and/or sufficiency of the evidence.”

Brief in Support of PCRA Petition, 4/7/20, at 8.

       The PCRA court dismissed these claims prior to the hearing, ruling that

they were claims were waived for purposes of the PCRA claims because they

could have been raised on Appellant’s direct appeal.3 See also PCRA Court

Opinion, 6/6/22, at 4. This ruling was correct. See 42 Pa.C.S.. § 9544(b)

(“[A]n issue is waived if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to do so

before trial, at trial, during unitary review, on appeal or in a prior state

postconviction proceeding.”). See also Commonwealth v. Price, 876 A.2d

988, 995 (Pa.Super. 2005) (“[A]n appellant may not raise allegations of error

in an appeal from the denial of PCRA relief as if he were presenting the claims

on direct appeal.”).

       For the above reasons, we agree with counsel that Appellant’s issues

are meritless. Therefore, we grant counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm

the PCRA court’s order dismissing Appellant’s fifth PCRA petition.

       Application of Coley O. Reynolds, Esquire, to withdraw as counsel

granted. Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

3  We observe that Appellant did not assert that Mr. McCray’s 1995 medical
records or their contents were newly discovered, previously unavailable facts.

                                           -9-
J-S03010-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/28/2023

                          - 10 -