Court Opinion

ID: 9889844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 17:10:40.690905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:03.198214
License: Public Domain

J-S25013-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  DARIUS MCDOWELL                              :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 2014 EDA 2022

            Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 8, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-51-CR-0009409-2017

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.:                            FILED OCTOBER 11, 2023

       Appellant Darius McDowell appeals from the order denying his first Post

Conviction Relief Act1 (PCRA) petition. Appellant argues that his trial counsel

was ineffective for failing to call a witness at trial and for failing to challenge

the weight of the evidence. Appellant also claims that appellate counsel was

ineffective for failing to raise the denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress on

direct appeal. We affirm.

       The underlying facts of this matter are well known to the parties. See

Commonwealth v. McDowell, 1296 MDA 2017, 2020 WL 3412338, at *1-2

(Pa. Super. filed June 22, 2020) (unpublished mem.). Briefly, in October of

2017, police officers responded to a call about a man in a blue shirt with a gun

banging on the door of a residence. The officers approached a car parked

____________________________________________

1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S25013-23

nearby and saw a fired cartridge casing on the car’s windshield. Appellant

was wearing a blue shirt and was seated inside that vehicle. The officers also

saw additional fired cartridge casings inside the vehicle.       After the officers

opened the car door, Appellant refused to get out of the car and struggled

with the officers. The officers arrested Appellant and recovered a firearm from

his pants pocket. Appellant was charged with persons not to possess firearms

and other offenses.2

         Appellant filed a motion to suppress the firearm and related evidence,

which the trial court denied after a hearing on July 24, 2018.

         At trial, Appellant testified that his girlfriend Shakira Maddox owned the

firearm and the car in which Appellant was sitting when the police arrested

him. See McDowell, 2020 WL 3412338, at *3. Appellant denied touching

or possessing the firearm and stated that Ms. Maddox had locked the firearm

in the car’s glove compartment before she got out. See id. Officer Allen Reed

testified that Ms. Maddox had given a statement in which she claimed that she

was the owner of the firearm. See id. at *7. Ms. Maddox did not testify at

trial.

         On August 16, 2018, a jury convicted Appellant of persons not to

possess firearms. The trial court sentenced Appellant to a term of seven and

one-half to fifteen years’ incarceration followed by three years’ probation on

____________________________________________

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1).

                                           -2-
J-S25013-23

October 18, 2018. Kenneth Williams, Esq. (trial counsel), of the Defender

Association of Philadelphia represented Appellant at trial and at sentencing.

      Appellant did not file any post-sentence motions, but he filed a timely

notice of appeal. On direct appeal, Appellant claimed that the trial court erred

in one of its evidentiary rulings, had shown bias towards the Commonwealth

and against Appellant, and failed to give a curative jury instruction.     See

McDowell, 2020 WL 3412338, at *3-4. This Court affirmed the judgment of

sentence, and our Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of

appeal on December 21, 2020. See id. at *8, appeal denied, 242 A.3d 1252

(Pa. 2020).   Shonda Williams, Esq. (appellate counsel), of the Defender

Association of Philadelphia represented Appellant on direct appeal.

      On January 29, 2021, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition, and the

PCRA appointed Peter Levin, Esq., to represent Appellant. Attorney Levin filed

an amended PCRA petition on July 30, 2021.         Appellant claimed that trial

counsel was ineffective for failing to call Shakira Maddox as a witness at trial

and for failing to file a post-sentence motion challenging the weight of the

evidence. Am. PCRA Pet., 7/30/21, at 4. Appellant also argued that appellate

counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the denial of Appellant’s

suppression motion on direct appeal. Id.

      The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing on March 24, 2022, limited

to the issue of whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Ms.

Maddox at trial.   Appellant, Ms. Maddox, and trial counsel testified at this

                                     -3-
J-S25013-23

hearing.   On August 8, 2022, the PCRA court filed an opinion and order

denying Appellant’s PCRA petition. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

      The PCRA court did not order Appellant to comply with Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b), but filed a Rule 1925(a) statement adopting its August 8, 2022

opinion and order. See PCRA Ct. Statement, 9/12/22.

      On appeal, Appellant raises four issues, which we reorder as follows:

      1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness
         to testify at Appellant’s trial?

      2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a post
         sentence motion that the verdict was against the weight of
         evidence?

      3. Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal
         the denial of the motion to suppress?

      4. Whether the PCRA court was in error in not granting relief on
         the issue that counsel was ineffective?

Appellant’s Brief at 7.

                          Timeliness of PCRA Petition

      Before we may address the issues presented, we must first determine

whether the PCRA court had jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s PCRA petition.

A PCRA petition “shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment

becomes final[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1). Further, Section 9545 explains:

      For purposes of this subchapter, a judgment becomes final at the
      conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review in the
      Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of
      Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking the review.

42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 901, cmt.

                                      -4-
J-S25013-23

       Under the PCRA, Appellant’s judgment of sentence did not become final

until May 20, 2021, 150 days after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied

Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal, when the time for petitioning for

a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court expired.       See 42

Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3); Miscellaneous Order Addressing the Extension of

Filing Deadlines [COVID-19], 334 F.R.D. 801 (U.S. 2020).3           Therefore,

when Appellant filed his pro se PCRA petition on January 29, 2021, the 150-

day period in which Appellant could have pursued an appeal in the United

States Supreme Court had not yet expired, and his pro se petition was

premature.

       However, Attorney Levin filed a PCRA petition on Appellant’s behalf on

July 30, 2021, after Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final.

Accordingly, we conclude that this timely filing permitted the PCRA court to

address Appellant’s claims. See e.g., Commonwealth v. Williams, 472 EDA

2020, 2021 WL 2287462 (Pa. Super. filed June 1, 2021) (unpublished mem.)

(concluding that although the defendant filed a premature pro se PCRA

petition prior to the expiration of the time for seeking direct review, the

subsequent filing of a timely, counseled PCRA petition occurred after the

defendant’s judgment of sentence became final, and it allowed the PCRA court

____________________________________________

3The United States Supreme Court rescinded this order on July 19, 2021.
Miscellaneous Order Rescinding COVID-19 Related Orders, 338 F.R.D.
801 (U.S. 2021).

                                           -5-
J-S25013-23

to proceed with its review of the defendant’s claims under the PCRA).4

Therefore, we will address the merits of Appellant’s claims.

                             Failure to Call a Witness

       In his first issue, Appellant argues that trial counsel was ineffective

because he failed to call Shakira Maddox as a witness. Appellant’s Brief at 15-

18. Appellant notes that at the PCRA evidentiary hearing, Ms. Maddox testified

that she owned the firearm and the vehicle involved in this case, and that she

locked the firearm in the glove box of her car when she got out while Appellant

remained behind in the vehicle. Id. at 15 (citing N.T. PCRA Hr’g, 3/24/22, at

16-17). Trial counsel had interviewed Ms. Maddox prior to trial but did not

issue a subpoena for her to testify.           Id. at 15-16 (citing N.T. PCRA Hr’g,

3/24/22, at 31, 34). Appellant argues that when Ms. Maddox failed to appear

at Appellant’s trial, trial counsel should have issued a subpoena for her and

requested a continuance. Id. at 16. Appellant claims that counsel’s failure to

call Ms. Maddox as a witness prejudiced him because her testimony would

have corroborated Appellant’s testimony that he did not possess the firearm

when the police arrested him because it was locked in the car’s glove

compartment. Id. at 17-18.

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

examining whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported by the

____________________________________________

4 Unpublished, non-precedential decisions of this Court that are filed after May

1, 2019, “may be cited for their persuasive value.” Pa.R.A.P. 126(b)(1)-(2);
see also 210 Pa. Code § 65.37(B).

                                           -6-
J-S25013-23

evidence of record and whether it is free of legal error.” Commonwealth v.

Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1043 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). This

Court applies a de novo standard of review to the PCRA court’s legal

conclusions. Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 25 A.3d 277, 284 (Pa. 2011).

A PCRA court’s credibility determinations, however, are binding on this Court

when such determinations are supported by the record.           Id.; see also

Commonwealth v. Davis, 262 A.3d 589, 595 (Pa. Super. 2021) (stating that

“[t]his Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if the

record contains any support for those findings” (citation omitted)).

      [T]o establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a
      defendant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence,
      ineffective assistance of counsel which, in the circumstances of
      the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process
      that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken
      place. The burden is on the defendant to prove all three of the
      following prongs: (1) the underlying claim is of arguable merit;
      (2) that counsel had no reasonable strategic basis for his or her
      action or inaction; and (3) but for the errors and omissions of
      counsel, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the
      proceedings would have been different.

      We have explained that a claim has arguable merit where the
      factual averments, if accurate, could establish cause for relief.
      Whether the facts rise to the level of arguable merit is a legal
      determination.

      The test for deciding whether counsel had a reasonable basis for
      his [or her] action or inaction is whether no competent counsel
      would have chosen that action or inaction, or, the alternative, not
      chosen, offered a significantly greater potential chance of success.
      Counsel’s decisions will be considered reasonable if they
      effectuated his [or her] client’s interests. We do not employ a
      hindsight analysis in comparing trial counsel’s actions with other
      efforts he may have taken.

                                     -7-
J-S25013-23

       Prejudice is established if there is a reasonable probability that,
       but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have
       been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient
       to undermine confidence in the outcome.

       Boilerplate allegations and bald assertions of no reasonable basis
       and/or ensuing prejudice cannot satisfy a petitioner’s burden to
       prove that counsel was ineffective. Moreover, a failure to satisfy
       any prong of the ineffectiveness test requires rejection of the
       claim of ineffectiveness.

Sandusky, 203 A.3d at 1043-44 (citations omitted and formatting altered).

       Further, “[c]ounsel cannot be found ineffective for failing to pursue a

baseless or meritless claim.” Davis, 262 A.3d at 596 (citation and quotation

marks omitted).

       “A failure to call a witness is not per se ineffective assistance of counsel

for such decision usually involves matters of trial strategy.” Commonwealth

v. Sneed, 45 A.3d 1096, 1109 (Pa. 2012) (citation and quotation marks

omitted).

       With respect to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to

call a potential witness, the defendant must establish that

       (1) the witness existed; (2) the witness was available to testify
       for the defense; (3) counsel knew of, or should have known of,
       the existence of the witness; (4) the witness was willing to testify
       for the defense; and (5) the absence of the testimony of the
       witness was so prejudicial as to have denied the defendant a fair
       trial.

Id. (citations omitted).

       Here, the PCRA made the following findings of fact and conclusions of

law:

                                       -8-
J-S25013-23

     32.   [Trial counsel’s] testimony was credible.

     33.   [Appellant] rejected [trial counsel’s] suggestion of
           requesting a continuance to obtain Ms. Maddox as a trial
           witness, and instead elected to proceed even if she didn’t
           appear.

                                    *     *   *

     42.   Even if true, Ms. Maddox’s testimony that she locked the
           gun in the glovebox before leaving to enter the daycare
           center with her children does not rebut the testimony of the
           officers that that [Appellant] was in possession of the gun
           when they saw him in the vehicle, when she was not
           present, nor does it rebut evidence that the glove box was
           open after [Appellant] was arrested.

     43.   Since Ms. Maddox’s testimony would not have rebutted the
           testimony of the police regarding the events after she left
           the scene, [Appellant] suffered no prejudice from the
           absence of her testimony.

     44.   Because the same evidence Ms. Maddox would have offered
           was presented through her statement at trial, there was no
           prejudice to [Appellant] from her failure to appear.

     45.   If “counsel’s failure to seek compulsory process to obtain [a
           witness’]s testimony . . . was the result of sloth or lack of
           awareness of the available alternatives, then his assistance
           was ineffective.” Commonwealth v. Twiggs, 331 A.2d
           440, 443 (Pa. 1975).

     46.   Trial counsel’s efforts to obtain the testimony of Ms. Maddox
           were reasonable under the circumstances.

     47.   Once it became apparent that she was not returning his calls
           and might not appear for trial, trial counsel offered to seek
           a continuance of trial in order to obtain Ms. Maddox’s
           testimony.

     48.   This offer to seek a continuance was reasonable under the
           circumstances.

     49.   [Appellant] rejected that offer, and instead elected to
           proceed to trial, whether or not Ms. Maddox would appear.

                                    -9-
J-S25013-23

      50.   Having rejected his trial counsel’s offer to request a trial
            continuance for Ms. Maddox’s appearance, and deciding
            instead to proceed whether or not she appeared, [Appellant]
            made the ultimate decision.

      51.   Counsel will not be deemed ineffective where his attempt to
            secure the testimony of Ms. Maddox was reasonable under
            the circumstances, and his last opportunity to seek a
            continuance to obtain her testimony was rejected by
            [Appellant].

PCRA Ct. Op. & Order, 8/8/22, at 7, 9-10 (some citations omitted).

      Following our review of the record, we find no error in the PCRA court’s

conclusion that Appellant failed to establish that trial counsel was ineffective

for failing to call Ms. Maddox as a witness at trial. See Sandusky, 203 A.3d

at 1043-44; see also Sneed, 45 A.3d at 1109. Therefore, we affirm on the

basis of the PCRA court’s analysis of this issue. See PCRA Ct. Op. & Order,

8/8/22, at 7, 9-10. Accordingly, Appellant is not entitled to relief on this claim.

                      Failure to Raise a Weight Claim

      In his second issue, Appellant argues that trial counsel was ineffective

for failing to file a post-conviction motion challenging the weight of the

evidence. Appellant’s Brief at 20-23. Appellant contends that the verdict was

against the weight of the evidence because Appellant’s testimony and Ms.

Maddox’s statement that the firearm was locked in the glove compartment of

the car contradict the testimony of the police officers. Id. at 20-21. Appellant

further argues that the Commonwealth did not present any scientific evidence,

such as fingerprints or DNA from the firearm or the spent shell casings, to

corroborate the officers’ testimony that Appellant possessed Ms. Maddox’s

                                      - 10 -
J-S25013-23

firearm. Id. Appellant claims that counsel’s omission prejudiced him because

it waived this claim both on post-sentence and appellate review. Id. at 20.

Appellant asserts that if his trial counsel had preserved a weight-of-the-

evidence claim for appeal, an appellate court would have reversed his

conviction. Id. at 20-21.

      To satisfy the arguable merit prong of a claim that counsel was

ineffective for failing to file a post-sentence motion challenging the weight of

the evidence, the petitioner “must demonstrate that the verdict was against

the weight of the evidence such that counsel may be deemed ineffective in

failing to file the post-sentence motion.”      Commonwealth v. Smith, 181

A.3d 1168, 1186 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted). When there is no merit

to the underlying weight-of-the-evidence claim, a PCRA petitioner is not

entitled to relief on a claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file a

post-sentence motion to preserve the weight claim for appeal. Id. at 1187.

      Our Supreme Court has explained:

      A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the verdict is against
      the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the
      trial court. A new trial should not be granted because of a mere
      conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same facts
      would have arrived at a different conclusion. When a trial court
      considers a motion for a new trial based upon a weight of the
      evidence claim, the trial court may award relief only when the
      jury’s verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s
      sense of justice and the award of a new trial is imperative so that
      right may be given another opportunity to prevail. . . .

      At trial, the jury [is] the ultimate fact-finder and the sole arbiter
      of the credibility of each of the witnesses. Issues of witness
      credibility include questions of inconsistent testimony and
      improper motive. A jury is entitled to resolve any inconsistencies

                                       - 11 -
J-S25013-23

      in the Commonwealth’s evidence in the manner that it sees fit. . .
      .

      [I]nconsistencies in eyewitness testimony are not
      sufficient to warrant a new trial on grounds that the verdict
      was against the weight of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Jacoby, 170 A.3d 1065, 1080-81 (Pa. 2017) (citations

and quotation marks omitted, emphasis added).

      Here the PCRA court explained:

      39.   Having observed the testimony [at trial], the court’s
            conscience is not at all shocked by the verdict. To the
            contrary, the verdict is consistent with the weight of the
            evidence.

      40.   [Appellant’s] claim that trial counsel was ineffective for
            failing to file a post sentence motion asserting that the
            verdict was against the weight of the evidence is without
            merit, and [Appellant] suffered no prejudice from trial
            counsel’s decision (or failure) to file a post-sentence motion
            on that ground.

PCRA Ct. Op. & Order, 8/8/22, at 8.

      Following our review of the record, we find no error in the PCRA court’s

conclusion that Appellant failed to establish that trial counsel was ineffective

for failing to challenge the weight of the evidence. See Sandusky, 203 A.3d

at 1043-44; see also Smith, 181 A.3d at 1186-87. The PCRA court also

presided over Appellant’s jury trial and concluded that the verdict did not

shock the conscience of the court. See PCRA Ct. Op. & Order, 8/8/22, at 8;

see also Jacoby, 170 A.3d 1065, 1080-81.            Therefore, the underlying

weight-of-the-evidence claim lacks arguable merit, and trial counsel cannot

                                     - 12 -
J-S25013-23

be ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim. See Davis, 262 A.3d at

596. Appellant is not entitled to relief on this issue.

                      Failure to Raise Suppression Claim

      In his final issue, Appellant argues that appellate counsel was ineffective

for failing to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress on direct appeal.

Appellant’s Brief at 18-20. Appellant claims that the police lacked reasonable

suspicion to detain him. Id. at 19. Appellant contends that an anonymous

tip, without more, is insufficient to “constitute reasonable grounds for the

police to suspect that an individual is armed and dangerous.”               Id. (citing

Commonwealth v. Jackson, 698 A.2d 571 (Pa. 1997)). Appellant contends

that because his suppression motion was meritorious, appellate counsel lacked

a reasonable basis for failing to raise this issue on appeal.        Id. at 18, 20.

Appellant concludes that if appellate counsel had challenged the trial court’s

order denying his motion to suppress the firearm on direct appeal, the

outcome of his appeal would have been different. Id. at 19-20.

      Our Supreme Court has explained that to establish prejudice for a claim

of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim, “the petitioner must show

that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the direct appeal

proceeding    would    have     been   different   but    for   counsel’s     deficient

performance.” Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739, 750 (Pa. 2014).

      It is well settled that

      Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Fourth
      Amendment to the United States Constitution both protect the
      people from unreasonable searches and seizures. Jurisprudence

                                       - 13 -
J-S25013-23

     arising under both charters has led to the development of three
     categories of interactions between citizens and police. The first,
     a “mere encounter,” does not require any level of suspicion or
     carry any official compulsion to stop or respond. The second, an
     “investigative detention,” permits the temporary detention of an
     individual if supported by reasonable suspicion. The third is an
     arrest or custodial detention, which must be supported by
     probable cause.

Commonwealth v. Lyles, 97 A.3d 298, 302 (Pa. 2014) (citations omitted).

     [T]o establish grounds for reasonable suspicion, the officer must
     articulate specific observations which, in conjunction with
     reasonable inferences derived from those observations, led him
     reasonably to conclude, in light of his experience, that criminal
     activity was afoot and that the person he stopped was involved in
     that activity. The question of whether reasonable suspicion
     existed at the time [the officer conducted the stop] must be
     answered by examining the totality of the circumstances to
     determine whether the officer who initiated the stop had a
     particularized and objective basis for suspecting the individual
     stopped. Therefore, the fundamental inquiry of a reviewing court
     must be an objective one, namely, whether the facts available to
     the officer at the moment of the [stop] warrant a man of
     reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was
     appropriate.

Commonwealth v. Green, 168 A.3d 180, 184 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation

omitted).

     This Court has explained:

     Where an investigative detention is based on an anonymous tip,
     we must determine whether under the totality of the
     circumstances the informant’s tip established the necessary
     reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. The veracity
     and reliability of anonymous tips are particularly difficult for the
     police to evaluate. Unlike trusted (or at least tested) informants
     or members of the public not concealing their identity, anonymous
     tipsters know they cannot be held to account for false allegations.
     See Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 270 (2000). In addition, they

                                    - 14 -
J-S25013-23

      often fail to reveal the basis for their alleged knowledge and are
      generally unavailable to answer follow-up questions from police.

      The United States Supreme Court has made clear that an
      anonymous tip that a particular person in a particular location is
      carrying a firearm does not, by itself, establish reasonable
      suspicion for an investigative detention. J.L., 529 U.S. at 274.

Commonwealth v. Mackey, 177 A.3d 221, 230 (Pa. Super. 2017) (some

citations omitted and formatting altered).

      However, “[a]n anonymous tip, corroborated by independent police

investigation, may exhibit sufficient indicia of reliability to supply reasonable

suspicion for an investigatory stop.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d

473, 477 (Pa. 2010); see also Jackson, 698 A.2d at 572, 575 (concluding

that an anonymous tip of “a man in a green jacket carrying a gun[]” did not,

by itself, exhibit sufficient indicia of reliability to establish reasonable suspicion

to support an investigatory detention and explaining that “the police must

investigate further by means not constituting a search and seizure. If, as a

result, they acquire sufficient information to give rise to a reasonable suspicion

that the individual is armed and dangerous, they may then initiate” an

investigatory detention).

      Here, the PCRA court explained:

      36.    [Appellant’s] claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for
             failing to appeal the denial of [Appellant’s] motion to
             suppress fails, because the motion [to] suppress physical
             evidence was properly [denied], and thus the underlying
             legal issue is without arguable merit. See Findings of Fact
             and Conclusions of Law, NT 7/24/18, 47-50.

      37.    Since the motion to suppress was properly denied,
             [Appellant] suffered no prejudice.

                                       - 15 -
J-S25013-23

PCRA Ct. Op. & Order, 8/8/22, at 7 (some formatting altered).

     The suppression court made the following findings of fact and

conclusions of law when denying Appellant’s motion to suppress:

     Police Officer Ibbotson . . . testified that on the date, time, and
     location in question, at approximately 6:30 p.m., he was at the
     time 3 1/2 years into the police force when he received a radio
     call for person with a gun at 1917 West Venango Street who was
     described as a black male with a blue shirt banging on the door. .
     . . The officer testified he arrived at the location within 5 minutes
     and also he was familiar with that area as a place of high incidence
     of arrests within a few block radius for guns and other illegal
     activity. He indicated that when he and his partner[, Officer
     Kology,] arrived there, he saw that Police Officer Robinson was
     already on location. . . . As [O]fficer Ibbotson, along with his
     partner, are walking down the sidewalk, they are walking toward
     the burgundy Nissan Maxima that this defendant is sitting in,
     facing them. He observes this defendant through the windshield
     leaning back in his seat as if to avoid detection. He is wearing a
     blue shirt and also during their approach, they observe a spent
     shell casing on the sidewalk. They also observe shortly thereafter
     spent shell casings inside the vehicle. At this point Officer Kology
     orders the defendant out of the car and tries to open the door, to
     which the defendant responds by saying “Get the fuck out of
     here,” and was able to shut the door back. A struggle ensues that
     then involves four police officers, . . . and also involves the
     sighting of a prominent outline of a gun on the jeans of the
     defendant, which Officer Ibbotson immediately recognizes to be
     the outline of a gun and he then felt with his hand and during the
     struggle he pressed down on it as they continued to try to
     apprehend the defendant.           Eventually, the defendant was
     apprehended and [a firearm, spent shell casings, and live
     ammunition] was recovered. . . .

     This court does find credible the testimony of Police Officer
     Ibbotson. This court finds that at the time that Police Officer
     Kology ordered the defendant out and tried to open the door,
     there was, at the very least, reasonable suspicion, and I think,
     more than likely, outright probable cause to search the vehicle.
     Assuming that it was only reasonable suspicion at this point, once
     the defendant resisted it would blossom into probable cause.
     Probable cause was then further enhanced by the struggle,

                                    - 16 -
J-S25013-23

      enhanced further still by the sighting of the outline of the firearm,
      then enhanced further still by Officer Ibbotson’s feeling of the
      firearm as he tried to hold it during the struggle. In sum, the
      totality of the circumstances, which include, but are not limited to,
      the radio call, the defendant’s description, the location, the facts
      he was there within 5 minutes, that he was leaning back in the
      seat eluding detection, and looking up the steps where Officer
      Robinson was on the same property that was named in the radio
      call, and the presence of shell casings not only on the sidewalk
      right outside the car but inside the car, altogether provide ample
      probable cause for the search and the arrest of the defendant.
      Therefore, his constitutional rights have not been violated, and
      the motion to suppress is denied.

N.T. Suppression Hr’g, 7/24/18, at 47-50 (some formatting altered).

      Based on our review of the record, we agree with the PCRA court that

Appellant has failed to establish the arguable merit and prejudice prongs for

his ineffectiveness claim against appellate counsel. Contrary to Appellant’s

assertions, the police did not rely solely on an anonymous tip to establish

reasonable suspicion to detain Appellant.     As the trial court explained, the

police officers saw spent shell casings in and around the car in which Appellant

was seated. See id. at 47-48. The shell casings were sufficient independent

indicia that the anonymous tip of a man in a blue shirt with a gun was reliable.

See Brown, 996 A.2d at 477; Jackson, 698 A.2d at 575.             Based on the

totality of the circumstances, the police had reasonable suspicion when they

opened the car door to believe that Appellant possessed and had at some

point discharged a firearm. See Green, 168 A.3d at 184. For these reasons,

Appellant’s suppression issue lacks arguable merit and appellate counsel

cannot be ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless claim on appeal. See

Davis, 262 A.3d at 596. Further, Appellant has failed to establish that there

                                     - 17 -
J-S25013-23

was a reasonable probability that if appellate counsel had raised this claim,

the outcome of his direct appeal would have been different. See Blakeney,

108 A.3d at 750. Appellant is not entitled to relief on this issue.

                                  Conclusion

      Appellant’s fourth issue is cumulative of the other issues he has raised

on appeal and are meritless, therefore no relief is due. For these reasons,

Appellant is not entitled to relief on his claims, and we affirm the PCRA court’s

order.

      Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: October 11, 2023

                                     - 18 -