Court Opinion

ID: 9383117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-29 16:18:30.658265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:43.746394
License: Public Domain

J-S43039-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    ALBERT BRINKLEY                            :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 2026 EDA 2021

             Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 24, 2021
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-51-CR-0014120-2011

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.:                              FILED MARCH 29, 2023

        Appellant Albert Brinkley appeals from the order denying his timely first

Post Conviction Relief Act1 (PCRA) petition. Appellant argues that the trial

court erred in rejecting Appellant’s evidentiary challenge and his claims

concerning ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

        The underlying facts and procedural history of this case are well known

to the parties. See PCRA Ct. Op., 7/1/22, at 1-11; see also Trial Ct. Op.,

5/29/14, at 2. Briefly, Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder and

related offenses following the 2011 shooting death of Quince Morant. On May

31, 2013, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of life

imprisonment without the possibility of parole.         After this Court affirmed

Appellant’s judgment of sentence on direct appeal, our Supreme Court denied

____________________________________________

1   42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S43039-22

further review. See Commonwealth v. Brinkley, 2256 EDA 2013, 2015 WL

6935538 (Pa. Super. filed July 10, 2015) (unpublished mem.), appeal denied,

129 A.3d 1240 (Pa. 2015).

      Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition on March 26, 2016.

Ultimately, after several delays and a bifurcated evidentiary hearing, the PCRA

court issued an order dismissing Appellant’s petition. See PCRA Ct. Order,

8/24/21.

      On September 2, 2021, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. The

PCRA court also granted prior PCRA counsel leave to withdraw and appointed

appellate counsel on Appellant’s behalf. Appellant subsequently filed a motion

requesting an extension to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, which the PCRA

court granted. Appellant filed a second request for an extension on November

29, 2021, which the PCRA court denied.

      On appeal, Appellant filed an application to remand the matter to the

PCRA court. This Court issued an order granting Appellant’s request on April

11, 2022.    Therein, the Court directed Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b)

statement and instructed the PCRA court to issue a supplemental Rule 1925(a)

opinion addressing Appellant’s claims.     Both Appellant and the PCRA court

complied with this Court’s remand order.

      On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues, which we have

reordered as follows:

      1. Did the [PCRA] court abuse its discretion and commit reversible
         error by finding that evidence, by way of stipulation, of police
         misconduct in other cases was not admissible pursuant to

                                     -2-
J-S43039-22

         Pa.R.E. 404(b), given that Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2) instructs that
         such evidence is admissible to demonstrate “motive,
         opportunity, [and] intent.”?

      2. Was prior PCRA counsel ineffective in failing to investigate,
         interview, and present witnesses Sharad Dubose, Jerome
         Boyd, John Ashmore, and Ivory Matthews in preparation for
         PCRA evidentiary proceedings given that, after initially
         providing statements inculpatory to Appellant, the witnesses
         distanced themselves from, or outright rejected, the
         statements they gave to the police?

      3. Was prior PCRA counsel ineffective in its relation to questioning
         Detective Jenkins about Elante Outterbridge’s status as a
         possible suspect? Raheim Hunter, who was interviewed by
         Jenkins, initially implicated Outterbridge as a suspect, yet prior
         PCRA counsel inexplicably failed to address this in his cross-
         examination of Jenkins[?]

      4. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit reversible
         error by dismissing [A]ppellant’s claims regarding trial
         counsel’s ineffectiveness grounded in a conflict of interest[] and
         the appellate counsel’s failure to raise and thereby litigate this
         issue on appeal?

Appellant’s Brief at 4-5.

      In reviewing an order denying a PCRA petition, our standard of review

is well settled:

      [O]ur standard of review from the denial of a PCRA petition is
      limited to examining whether the PCRA court’s determination is
      supported by the evidence of record and whether it is free of legal
      error.    The PCRA court’s credibility determinations, when
      supported by the record, are binding on this Court; however, we
      apply a de novo standard of review to the PCRA court’s legal
      conclusions.

Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1043 (Pa. Super. 2019)

(citations omitted and formatting altered).

                                      -3-
J-S43039-22

       Here, after reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the well-

reasoned conclusions of the PCRA court, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA

court’s opinion.2 See PCRA Ct. Op. at 1-11. Specifically, we agree with the

PCRA court that (1) the PCRA court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting

Appellant’s request to present evidence of a stipulation regarding police

misconduct in an unrelated case; (2) Appellant failed to demonstrate that prior

PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to interview witnesses who recanted

their testimony at trial; (3) Appellant failed to establish that prior PCRA

counsel was ineffective for failing to cross-examine Detective Jenkins about

Elaine Outterbridge’s status as a possible suspect; and (4) Appellant failed to

establish that trial counsel had a conflict of interest that adversely affected his

performance and, therefore, Appellant’s layered ineffectiveness claim against

both trial counsel and direct appeal counsel was meritless. See id. at 4-11.

       For these reasons, we conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief.

See Sandusky, 203 A.3d at 1043. Accordingly, we affirm.

       Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

2 We note that the PCRA court’s opinion contains a typographical error which
states that the initial Rule 1925(a) opinion was filed on January 28, 2021.
See PCRA Ct. Op. at 3. Our review of the record confirms that the PCRA court
issued its initial opinion on January 28, 2022. See PCRA Ct. Op., 1/28/22.

                                           -4-
J-S43039-22

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 03/29/2023

                          -5-
Circulated 03/06/2023 12:47 PM