Court Opinion

ID: 9914039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-29 14:09:03.272167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:54.052732
License: Public Domain

J-S26009-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                      :
              v.                      :
                                      :
                                      :
 FATIH D. ANDERSON                    :
                                      :
                   Appellant          :   No. 2238 EDA 2022

          Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 8, 2022
          In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
           Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0000555-2009

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                      :
              v.                      :
                                      :
                                      :
 FATIH D. ANDERSON                    :
                                      :
                   Appellant          :   No. 2239 EDA 2022

          Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 8, 2022
          In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
           Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0000583-2009

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                      :
              v.                      :
                                      :
                                      :
 FATIH D. ANDERSON                    :
                                      :
                   Appellant          :   No. 2240 EDA 2022

          Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 8, 2022
          In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
           Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0006945-2009

BEFORE: STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
J-S26009-23

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:                      FILED DECEMBER 28, 2023

      Appellant, Fatih Anderson, appeals from the August 8, 2022 orders

dismissing her petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. We affirm.

      The record reflects that Appellant was convicted of the murders of James

McClain, Donte Leak, and Stephen Gates. These murders were in apparent

revenge for the murder of Appellant’s friend, Reginald Ford. All four murders

arose from ongoing conflict between rival gangs.       Appellant’s cases were

consolidated for trial. On February 17, 2012, the trial court, sitting as fact

finder, found Appellant guilty of three counts of first-degree murder, three

counts of robbery, and related offenses. Appellant is currently serving three

concurrent life sentences along with concurrent sentences for the other

offenses.   This Court affirmed the judgments of sentence on February 26,

2014. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on August

25, 2014, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on March

23, 2015.

      Appellant filed a timely first PCRA petition on July 15, 2015. The PCRA

court dismissed that petition on January 5, 2017, this Court affirmed the

dismissal on January 26, 2018, and our Supreme Court denied allowance of

appeal on September 3, 2018.

      Appellant filed a pro se second PCRA petition on January 31, 2018,

alleging the recantation of trial witness Michael Green.       The underlying

                                     -2-
J-S26009-23

criminal bench trials were consolidated based on Green’s testimony that

Appellant confessed to him that she murdered McClain, Leak, and Gates. The

PCRA court dismissed the second petition because Appellant’s appeal from the

dismissal of his first petition was still pending.

      On September 11, 2018, after the Supreme Court denied allowance of

appeal from the denial of Appellant’s first PCRA petition, Appellant filed the

instant one. Once again, he alleged the recantation of Michael Green. On

February 3, 2020, Appellant, through appointed counsel, filed an amended

petition alleging newly discovered facts in the form of a statement from David

Satchell, who claimed he was an eyewitness to the murder of Stephen Gates

and that the perpetrator was Ollie Glover, a/k/a Stick Up.     Appellant filed

another amended petition on June 5, 2020, alleging newly discovered facts in

the form of statements from Stefon Palmer and Haashim Khalid, both of whom

made statements similar to that of Satchell.

      The PCRA court conducted a hearing on May 23 and 24, 2022. Appellant

withdrew the claims arising from the alleged recantation of Michael Green, as

Appellant was unable to locate Green after his release from prison.      N.T.

5/23/22, at 9. The hearing proceeded with testimony from Crystal Anderson

(Appellant’s mother), Satchell, Palmer, and Khalid. The PCRA court dismissed

Appellant’s petition on August 8, 2022. This timely appeal followed.

      The PCRA court summarized the hearing testimony in its Pa.R.A.P.

1925(a) opinion:

                                       -3-
J-S26009-23

            Crystal Anderson, [Appellant’s] mother, testified that she
     received a letter from David Satchell on October 14, 2019,
     wherein Satchell claimed to be an eyewitness to the murder of
     [Gates]. Ms. Anderson turned the letter over to [Appellant’s]
     attorney. She admitted to speaking to Satchell before he wrote
     the letter but did not elaborate on what they discussed. She
     testified that Satchell grew up with [Appellant].

           David Satchell testified that he wrote a letter to
     [Appellant’s] mother, Crystal Anderson, on October 14, 2019. In
     the letter Satchell stated he came across [Appellant’s] case while
     researching his case and didn’t know that [Appellant] had been
     convicted for killing Gates. Satchell testified that he was an
     eyewitness to the Gates murder and knew it wasn’t [Appellant]
     and sent the letter because he wanted to help. Satchell has been
     friends with [Appellant] since 2003-2004. Satchell also sent an
     affidavit to [Appellant’s] attorney stating what he observed the
     night of the murder which is summarized as follows:

           On September 20, 2007, I was on 17th Street visiting a
     female friend by the name of Zakia Clark. I was talking to a few
     friends on the corner of 17th and Cumberland when I saw Ollie
     Glover a/k/a ‘Stick Up’ and an unknown male walk past. The two
     males turned onto 17th Street and people began running off 17th
     Street onto Cumberland. I heard shots fired and everyone laid on
     the ground. When the shots ended, ‘Stick Up’ and the unknown
     male ran off 17th Street. Both were carrying guns in their hand.
     The unknown male put his in his pocket. Everyone ran to 17th
     Street and saw Little Steve laying on the ground.

            At the PCRA hearing Satchell testified that he first saw the
     faces of the shooters and recognized one as ‘Stick Up’ as they fled
     after the shooting. This contradicts the statement in his affidavit.

           On cross examination, Satchell stated that he knew the
     other two newly discovered witnesses, Stefon Palmer and
     Haashim Khalid, but he did not see them in the area during the
     incident. Satchell also knew Julius Roberts, who testified at trial
     to witnessing the murder of [Gates, Roberts’ cousin], but Satchell
     did not see Roberts on the scene either. Most importantly, emails
     between Satchell and [Appellant], sent via third parties, were
     introduced at the hearing which tended to prove that Satchell and
     [Appellant] were involved in a quid pro quo deal regarding their
     PCRA hearings. Each happened to have a common witness—
     Derrick Williams—who later attempted to recant on both cases.

                                    -4-
J-S26009-23

       […] Contrary to the testimony of both [Appellant] and Satchell,
       claiming that Satchell did not communicate with [Appellant] or
       come forward until October of 2019, some of the emails were from
       March of 2019.[1]

             Haashim Khalid testified that he was an eyewitness to the
       murder of [Gates] on September 20, 2007, and he provided an
       affidavit regarding the incident in 2020. Khalid and [Appellant]
       were friends from the neighborhood since 2003.

             At the time of the murder, Khalid was with his friend, Stefon
       Palmer, at a Chinese store located at the corner of West
       Cumberland Street and North Chadwick Street. While inside,
       Khalid heard gunshots. After they ended, he looked out of the
       store and saw two males run past him, coming from 17th Street.
       Khalid recognized one of the males as ‘Stick Up’ (Ollie Glover), but
       he could not identify the other male, because he had a hoodie
       pulled down in the face area. He observed ‘Stick Up’ put a gun in
       his hoodie pocket, then both males jumped into an old gray town
       car on Chadwick Street and left the area.

             Khalid first informed [Appellant] that he was an eyewitness
       to [Gates’] murder in 2018, when he and a friend, Loc, visited
       [Appellant] in jail. He did not come forward sooner because he
       did not want to be involved. Khalid had a change of heart when
       he went to the prison to see [Appellant], after [Appellant’s]
       brother was murdered, to pay his condolences, and he discovered
       that [Appellant] was in jail for this murder. On cross examination,
       Khalid acknowledged that he knew that ‘Stick Up’ was murdered
       on October 30, 2007. He also stated that he knew David Satchell
       from the neighborhood and attended school with him, but he did
       not see Satchell in the area at the time of the murder.

            Stefon Palmer testified that he was also an eyewitness to
       the murder of [Gates]. He was with Khalid in the Chinese store.
       Palmer provided an affidavit regarding the incident on May 3,
       2020, at the behest of his friend, Khalid. Palmer has been friends

____________________________________________

1   The PCRA court found Appellant’s petition not timely as to Satchell.
Appellant does not challenge that finding on appeal. Satchell’s hearing
testimony is relevant to the PCRA court’s explanation of its finding that
Satchell, Khalid, and Palmer lacked credibility.

                                           -5-
J-S26009-23

      with [Appellant] for about 15 to 20 years, and they lived in the
      same neighborhood.

            Palmer and Khalid were at the store on the corner of
      Chadwick Street when the heard multiple gunshots coming from
      the corner. Palmer looked out of the door when the coast was
      clear and saw ‘Stick Up’ running from the corner while putting a
      gun in his waist. ‘Stick Up’ then jumped into a car. On cross
      examination, Palmer stated that he did not see anyone with ‘Stick
      Up’ as he ran by and jumped in the car. Further, Palmer did not
      see any other people around the area when this happened.

             [Appellant] testified that he did not discover that Khalid was
      an eyewitness to the murder of [Gates] until November of 2017,
      during a prison visit from Khalid, Loc, and a female friend, Abrea
      Williams. At that time, Khalid was hesitant to cooperate, but told
      [Appellant] to send a private investigator and he would talk to
      him. [Appellant] also testified that he was unaware that Satchell
      was a witness until November of 2019, when his mother received
      a letter from Satchell.

PCRA Court Opinion, 11/4/22, at 3-6 (record citations omitted).

      The PCRA court found that the petition was timely, but concluded the

petition failed on the merits because Appellant’s new witnesses lacked

credibility and therefore their testimony would not have altered the outcome

of trial. Appellant argues that the PCRA court erred in this regard.

      On review, we must determine whether the record supports the PCRA

court’s findings of fact, and whether its conclusions of law were in error.

Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210, 1214 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en

banc). “Our scope of review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and

the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing

party at the PCRA court level.”          Id.    “The PCRA court’s credibility

                                      -6-
J-S26009-23

determinations, when supported by the record, are binding on this Court.” Id.

We review the PCRA court’s legal conclusions de novo. Id.

      We begin with an analysis of the PCRA court’s jurisdictional timeliness

provisions.     Any PCRA petition, including a second or subsequent petition,

must be filed within one year of the date on which the judgment of sentence

becomes final. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Failing that, the petitioner must

prove the applicability of one of the PCRA’s timeliness exceptions, one of which

is that “the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the

petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due

diligence[.]”     42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii).       Appellant relies on this

subsection, acknowledging that his petition is otherwise untimely. “To qualify

for   an   exception   to   the   PCRA’s   time   limitations   under   subsection

9545(b)(1)(ii), a petitioner need only establish that the facts upon which the

claim is based were unknown to him and could not have been ascertained by

the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618,

629 (Pa. 2017).

      In this case, Appellant testified that he first had a conversation with

Khalid about his knowledge of the Gates murder “towards the end of

November of 2017.” N.T. Hearing, 5/23/22, at 82. The PCRA court accepted

testimony that Appellant and Khalid, who were childhood friends, had not

spoken for many years prior. And while the petition filed on September 11,

2018 pertained to a different witness, the fact remains that Appellant’s petition

                                       -7-
J-S26009-23

was pending within one year of his conversation with Khalid. Thus, the record

supports the PCRA court’s finding that this petition was timely. We therefore

proceed to the merits.

      Under § 9543(a)(2)(vi), a petitioner is eligible for relief if he pleads and

proves by a preponderance of the evidence “[t]he unavailability at the time of

trial of exculpatory evidence that has subsequently become available and

would have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced.” 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(vi). A petitioner satisfies this subsection by proving

that “(1) the exculpatory evidence has been discovered after trial and 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.” Burton, 158

A.3d at 629.

      The PCRA court found the first three elements satisfied.                The

Commonwealth concedes as much. The PCRA court found that Appellant failed

to establish the fourth element, and we agree. The PCRA court found Satchell

not credible. The court wrote that the “evidence proved that [Appellant] and

Satchell were in communication and cahoots with each other regarding their

common goal of getting out from under their convictions.”            PCRA Court

Opinion, 11/4/22, at 7. As explained above, the Commonwealth produced

email communications showing that Satchell and Appellant had a plan to help

each other in their efforts to get their convictions overturned. Further, the

                                      -8-
J-S26009-23

PCRA court found that Appellant failed to exercise due diligence in procuring

Satchell as a witness, as Appellant and Satchell “were lifelong friends and

cohorts and were proven to be in communication when both testified that they

weren’t[.]” Id. These facts support the PCRA court’s rejection of Satchell’s

credibility.

      Regarding Khalid and Palmer, the PCRA court noted that neither claimed

to have seen the shooting take place. Rather, they claimed they saw Ollie

Glover a/k/a Stick Up running from the area of the shooting shortly after they

heard gunshots.       Khalid said Glover ran from the scene with another

individual.    Palmer said Glover fled from the scene alone.   Both men said

Glover had a gun. At trial, the Commonwealth produced the testimony of

Julius Roberts, an eyewitness who saw Appellant and another person aim their

guns at Gates and fire a combined twelve to fourteen shots.       Roberts also

testified that Appellant, knowing Roberts was a witness, attempted to

intimidate him prior to trial. Id. at 8-9.

      Based on these facts, the PCRA judge, who also presided as fact finder

over the underlying criminal trials, found as follows:

            One of the facts that really stands out the most between the
      testimony of Mr. Khalid and Mr. Palmer is that – well, one, neither
      of them saw David Satchell out there, even though David Satchell
      says he was right there. Satchell says he never saw Khalid or
      Palmer out there. But the biggest discrepancy between the
      testimony of Khalid and Palmer, Khalid testified that he saw two
      persons, one of whom you can clearly identify as Stick Up. […] But
      that conflicted with Palmer who clearly testified that he only saw
      one person and that person was Stick Up. That person was alone.
      Big discrepancy in the testimony.

                                      -9-
J-S26009-23

               As far as – it is also interesting to note that there was
         testimony during the course of the trial that the second person
         with [Appellant] during the Gates murder was Stick Up.

                                        […]

                Therefore, this being a waiver trial especially, this court
         watched everything, heard everything, saw. I remember this case
         quite clearly because of the level of witness intimidation involved
         in this case. This court does not find that there would be a
         different result, because this court finds these witnesses
         completely and utterly incredible.

N.T. PCRA Hearing, 5/24/22, at 70-71, 74.

         The record supports the PCRA court’s findings. Appellant’s witnesses

came forward long after the fact, and the person they implicated as the

perpetrator, Glover, is long dead, having been murdered prior to Appellant’s

trial.   Satchell and Appellant were demonstrably scheming to manufacture

evidence to help each other obtain collateral relief. Khalid and Palmer were

childhood friends of Appellant, and the trial court questioned their motives for

waiting so long to come forward. Glover could not have retaliated, and Khalid

and Palmer came forward only after Appellant and Satchell had hatched a

scheme to help each other obtain collateral relief.        Moreover, there were

discrepancies between and among Appellant’s PCRA witnesses as to who was

at the scene and who, if anyone, was with Glover. As noted above, the PCRA

court’s credibility findings, when supported by the record, are binding on this

Court. Medina, 92 A.3d at 1214. We discern no error in the PCRA court’s

                                       - 10 -
J-S26009-23

findings. Because Appellant produced no credible evidence that could have

altered the outcome of his trial, we discern no error.2

       Order affirmed.

Date: 12/28/2023

____________________________________________

2   Alternately, it appears that the best-case scenario for Appellant was to
establish that Glover was a perpetrator of the Gates murder. The evidence at
trial was that there were two shooters, Appellant and possibly Glover. In this
scenario, Satchell, Khalid, and Palmer would be new sources for a fact
previously known to Appellant, and his petition would be untimely. See
Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 173 A.3d 617, 625 (Pa. 2017) (noting that facts
previously known to the petitioner but presented through a new source do not
make out the factual predicate for § 9545(b)(1)(ii)). Further, a finding that
Glover was the second shooter would not compel a different verdict as to
Appellant.

                                          - 11 -