Court Opinion

ID: 9386465
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-12 16:06:38.647001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:06.626268
License: Public Domain

J-S04033-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                    :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                    :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                                    :
                v.                                  :
                                                    :
                                                    :
    HAKIM ROBINSON                                  :
                                                    :
                       Appellant                    :   No. 1515 EDA 2021

               Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 12, 2021
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-51-CR-0208872-2001

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.:                                 FILED APRIL 12, 2023

        Hakim Robinson (Robinson) appeals from the order entered in the Court

of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (PCRA court) denying his fourth

petition filed pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) as untimely.1

Robinson contends he is entitled to application of the newly-discovered facts

exception to the PCRA’s jurisdictional time-bar. We affirm.

                                               I.

                                               A.

        This case arises from Robinson’s involvement in the shooting death and

robbery of Richard Williams, Jr. (Williams) at Williams’ apartment in West

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1   42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S04033-23

Philadelphia in an area known as “the Bottom.” Police determined during the

investigation that Williams sold marijuana and that one of his friends, co-

defendant Robert Jones (Jones), conspired with Robinson and co-defendant

Fred Porter (Porter) to rob Williams. Porter fatally shot Williams in the chest

during the robbery.

      Each of the co-defendants gave statements to police describing their

participation in the crime, and these statements were read into the record at

trial. Counsel for defendants jointly moved for production of the personnel

file of Detective William Egenlauf, a homicide detective who was involved in

taking the defendants’ statements because of allegations relating to his

misconduct in an unrelated case.       Counsel argued that Detective Egenlauf

“may have been involved in falsification as to the production of certain

statements . . . Egenlauf is the one that took the statement . . . in Haik and

Wise, the Center City jogger case, that was ultimately rejected by the jury in

that case as untruthful.”    (N.T. Trial, 4/23/02, at 64, 66).      The trial court

denied the motion and stated, “there is no factual basis to support [the

motion]. If he has some factual basis to support it, he can point out what he

believes are lies or falsifications; then I will listen to it. But, otherwise, just a

bold allegation that [Detective Egenlauf] may have been involved in a

falsification of the statement is not a foundation for a motion at this point.”

(Id. at 66).

                                        -2-
J-S04033-23

      As   to   Robinson’s   confession,   Detective   Steven   Buckley   of   the

Philadelphia Police Department testified that he interviewed Robinson with

Detective Egenlauf, who recorded the statement.          Robinson’s seven-page

statement, which he signed at the bottom of each page, read in relevant part

as follows:

             Earlier that night I was with two guys out my way. The first
      guy said he wanted to get a couple of dollars and wanted me to
      go with him down the Bottom. We go and get this third guy who
      was with his friends. The first guy said we were going down to
      the bottom to get us a couple of dollars. . . He meant he was
      going to rip somebody off. He was setting it up. He was basically
      telling the third guy just go in and put the gun in his face and he
      will give you anything you want. . .

             We went to Richard’s house and we were going to buy a bag
      or two to make it look good. . . Me and the first guy go into
      Richard’s house and we conversate. We’re in Richard’s house
      about three minutes. . . Richard has a girl with him. I didn’t see
      her but I knew she was there. I know she dances at bars and
      stuff. Matter of fact she dances at the Panther Bar, 35th and Mount
      Vernon Streets. . .

             We had planned it that as I left out of the apartment, the
      guy with the gun would come rushing into the apartment. That’s
      what happened. He comes in with the gun. He smacks Richard
      [and told him] to get the hell down and then tells Richard, Where
      is the shit at? Then he hit the guy again and he was down on the
      floor and he pointed over to the couch and said it’s behind the
      couch or something like that. I left out and I heard a bang. Later
      the guy with the gun told me that Richard started fighting and as
      Richard came towards him, the gun just went off accidentally. . .
      I went to my car and I left. Me and Brahim go right to his house
      and then the guy with the gun came later and we was talking. But
      this is the part I’m stuck on. He didn’t have no bag with him when
      he came to the house.

(N.T. Trial, 4/25/02, 90-94).

                                      -3-
J-S04033-23

        At the conclusion of trial, the jury convicted Robinson of second-degree

murder, robbery, burglary and conspiracy.           The trial court imposed an

aggregate sentence of life imprisonment plus 2-4 years. This Court affirmed

Robinson’s judgment of sentence in July 2003 and our Supreme Court

dismissed his petition for allowance of appeal as improvidently granted on May

10, 2004. Robinson’s timely first PCRA petition was dismissed in March 2006,

and he unsuccessfully litigated two subsequent petitions.

                                               B.

        Robinson, acting pro se, filed the instant PCRA petition on December 10,

2018, and a supplemental petition in November 2019.2 The crux of Robinson’s

claim is that on or about December 2, 2018, he received new information that

Detective Egenlauf had secured a false confession in an unrelated case,

leading to the defendant’s acquittal, citing a federal civil rights complaint

litigated in 1997, Wise v. Egenlauf, et al. 97-cv-2651 (ED. Pa.) (the “Center

City Jogger” case), in which Detective Egenlauf was one of many named and

unnamed defendants constituting a newly-discovered fact.

        He goes on to contend that the Commonwealth’s failure to provide him

with all information regarding the investigations into Detective Egenlauf’s

____________________________________________

2   Robinson retained current counsel in April 2021.

                                           -4-
J-S04033-23

misconduct during his trial or direct appeal constituted a Brady3 violation.

The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice4 to dismiss the petition without a

hearing and dismissed the petition as untimely on July 12, 2021. Robinson

timely appealed and he and the PCRA court complied with Rule 1925(b). See

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)-(b).

                                               II.

        We begin by considering the timeliness of Robinson’s petition because if

it is untimely, neither this Court nor the PCRA court has jurisdiction over the

petition.5 See Commonwealth v. Reid, 235 A.3d 1124, 1140 (Pa. 2020).

“The PCRA requires that a petition seeking relief thereunder must be filed

within one year of the date the petitioner’s judgment of sentence becomes

____________________________________________

3 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), holding that “the suppression
by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused upon request violates
due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment,
irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Brady, at 87.
“There are three components of a true Brady violation: The evidence at issue
must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because
it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State,
either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued.”
Commonwealth v. Natividad, 200 A.3d 11, 25–26 (Pa. 2019) (citation
omitted).

4   Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1).

5 Because the issue of whether a PCRA petition is timely raises a question of
law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.
See Commonwealth v. Pew, 189 A.3d 486, 488 (Pa. Super. 2018). A PCRA
petitioner is not automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing, and we
review a PCRA court’s decision to dismiss a petition without a hearing for an
abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 244 A.3d 1281, 1286
(Pa. Super. 2021).

                                           -5-
J-S04033-23

final.” Id. at 1144 (citation omitted). “[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.” Id. (citation omitted).

      In this case, Robinson’s judgment of sentence became final on August

8, 2004, when his time to file a writ of certiorari with the United States

Supreme Court expired. See U.S. Sup.Ct. R. 13. Robinson’s PCRA petition,

filed in December 2018, is, therefore, patently untimely and must meet one

of the three limited exceptions to the PCRA’s time-bar:

      (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of
      interference by government officials with the presentation of the
      claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth
      or the Constitution or laws of the United States;

      (ii) 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; or

      (iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized
      by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court
      of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and
      has been held by that court to apply retroactively.

42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). “The PCRA petitioner bears the burden of

proving the applicability of one of the exceptions.”      Reid, supra at 1144

(citation omitted).

      Robinson claims the applicability of the timeliness exception at Section

9545(b)(1)(ii) “which requires a petitioner to demonstrate he did not know

the facts upon which he based his petition and could not have learned those

                                      -6-
J-S04033-23

facts earlier by the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Brown,

111 A.3d 171, 176 (Pa. Super. 2015).

      We note that be entitled to relief based on a claim of after-discovered

evidence under the PCRA, a petitioner must plead and prove that his

conviction or sentence resulted from “[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.

§ 9543(a)(2)(vi). A petitioner must establish 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.” Commonwealth v.

Tedford, 228 A.3d 891, 911 (Pa. 2020) (citation omitted). We reiterate that

“a Brady violation consists of three elements:         (1) suppression by the

prosecution (2) of evidence, whether exculpatory or impeaching, favorable to

the defendant, (3) to the prejudice of the defendant.” Id. at 908 n.11 (citation

omitted).

      Moreover, to meet the newly-discovered facts exception, the petitioner

must show “Due diligence [which] demands that the petitioner take

reasonable steps to protect his own interests.”       Brown, at 176 (citation

omitted). “A petitioner must explain why he could not have learned the new

fact(s) earlier with the exercise of due diligence.” Id. (citation omitted). “This

                                      -7-
J-S04033-23

rule is strictly enforced.” Id. (citation omitted). Additionally, the focus of this

exception “is on the newly discovered facts, not on a newly discovered or

newly willing source for previously known facts.” Id. (citation omitted).

                                       III.

      Over 16 years later, in his December 2018 PCRA petition, Robinson

contends that the trial court erred by dismissing his petition under the newly-

discovered facts exception to the PCRA’s time-bar.        He maintains that the

“new fact at issue is that the Commonwealth has failed to disclose information

relative to investigations into Detective Egenlauf’s practice of coercing false

confessions. This is a Brady violation, and this is what constitutes a new ‘fact’

. . . [and] the Commonwealth was required to provide any and all favorable

information to the defense, whether it was admissible or not.” (Robinson’s

Brief at 13).

      What this ignores is that this “fact” that Robinson equates with a Brady

violation is not “newly discovered” and was “not unknown” to him at the time

of trial. Trial counsel for Robinson raised the issue of Detective Egenlauf’s

alleged misconduct relating to false confessions at Robinson’s 2002 trial and

specifically sought information about the Wise “Center City jogger” case.

Moreover, despite his claim that Detective Egenlauf supposedly had a “habit”

of falsifying statements and confessions, he points to no other cases where

the Commonwealth was aware that Detective Egenlauf coerced a confession

to even have a facial Brady claim.

                                       -8-
J-S04033-23

      Moreover, even if Detective Egenlauf’s purported misconduct could be

considered new information, Robinson has failed to identify specific steps he

took to protect his interests and neglected to provide a reasonable explanation

as to why he could not have timely obtained any salient information, if it

exists, concerning the detective’s conduct in this case during the years-long

gap between his conviction and the filing of this serial petition. Reframing the

issue concerning Detective Egenlauf as a Brady violation does not allow

Robinson to circumvent the timeliness requirements of the PCRA.

      Accordingly, because Robinson failed to meet his burden of showing that

his petition meets the newly-discovered facts exception to the time-bar, we

affirm the PCRA court’s order dismissing it as untimely.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/12/2023

                                     -9-