Court Opinion

ID: 9378485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 17:08:18.975504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:21.640202
License: Public Domain

J-S23029-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    JERONE ANDRE MOORE                         :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1651 MDA 2021

            Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 22, 2021
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-40-CR-0003215-2015

BEFORE:      STABILE, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                  FILED: MARCH 10, 2023

        Jerone Andre Moore appeals the order denying his Post Conviction Relief

Act (“PCRA”) petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. This case returns to

us following our denial of counsel’s initial petition to withdraw. We directed

counsel to file either a compliant Turner/Finley brief and petition to

withdraw, or an advocate’s brief.1 Counsel has filed a petition to withdraw as

counsel, along with a Turner/Finley brief. We affirm the order dismissing

Moore’s PCRA petition and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.

        A jury convicted Moore of attempted murder and kidnapping.2 Relevant

to this appeal, at trial, counsel objected to the Commonwealth’s questioning
____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1Commonwealth     v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v.
Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc).

2   18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901 and 2901(a)(3), respectively.
J-S23029-22

of the officer who confiscated Moore’s phone. N.T., Trial, 2/21/17, at 484.

Defense counsel objected that a text message to Moore’s girlfriend was not

admissible as an admission of a party opponent. The message was sent from

Moore’s phone one day after the kidnapping. The message read, “A lot of shit

went down bae n its bad I need to leave [sic].” Id. at 488. Defense counsel

objected that Moore could have been “talking about something else.” Id. at

485. The court overruled the objection. Id. Counsel made a second objection,

immediately before the Commonwealth admitted the contents of the text

message. Id. at 487. Counsel argued that the Commonwealth had not proved

that the outgoing message was from Moore. Id. The court overruled the

objection and the Commonwealth admitted the message into evidence.

      After conviction and sentencing, Jackson appealed to this Court,

challenging, among other issues, the authentication of the text message. See

Commonwealth v. Moore, No. 820 MDA 2017, 2018 WL 3800774, at *2

(Pa.Super. filed August 10, 2018) (unpublished memorandum). We rejected

this claim as waived due to Moore’s failure to include it in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

statement. See id. We affirmed the judgment of sentence, and our Supreme

Court denied allowance of appeal. See id.; Commonwealth v. Moore, 203

A.3d 983 (Table) (Pa. filed March 11, 2019).

      Moore then filed the instant, timely PCRA petition. The court appointed

counsel, who filed an amended PCRA petition. The amended petition

contended that prior counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve the

                                      -2-
J-S23029-22

challenge to the authentication of the text message. The PCRA court, which

also presided over Moore’s trial, held an evidentiary hearing on April 12, 2021.

       At the hearing, Moore testified that he did not have a conversation with

counsel regarding the admission of the text message but that he understood

that counsel would raise the issue on appeal. N.T., PCRA Hearing, 4/12/21, at

8. Moore’s trial counsel, David Lampman, Esquire, testified that he believed

he raised the issue of the text on appeal. Id. at 11. He testified that he “made

an objection during trial to the admission of that text message. I put it in my

complaint statement on the first page, and I fully briefed the issue in the

appeal.” Id. at 13. The court denied the petition and this timely appeal

followed.

       We first address whether counsel has satisfied the procedural

requirements of a petition to withdraw. A Turner/Finley brief must: (1) detail

the nature and extent of counsel’s review; (2) list each issue the petitioner

wished to have reviewed; and (3) explain why the petitioner’s issues were

meritless. See Commonwealth v. Doty, 48 A.3d 451, 454 (Pa.Super. 2012)

(citation omitted). “Counsel must also send to the petitioner: (1) a copy of the

‘no-merit’ letter/brief; (2) a copy of counsel’s petition to withdraw; and (3) a

statement advising petitioner of the right to proceed pro se or by new

counsel.” Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717, 721 (Pa.Super. 2007).

If counsel has substantially complied with these requirements,3 we conduct
____________________________________________

3See Commonwealth v. Karanicolas, 836 A.2d 940, 947 (Pa.Super. 2003)
(holding that substantial compliance with Turner/Finley criteria is sufficient).

                                           -3-
J-S23029-22

our own independent review to determine if the issues raised are in fact

meritless. If they are, we grant counsel’s petition to withdraw. Id.

      Here, counsel has substantially complied with the requirements of

Turner/Finley. Counsel’s brief details the nature and extent of his review,

lists the issue that Moore wishes to have reviewed, and explains counsel’s

conclusion that Moore’s issue is meritless. Counsel attached a letter addressed

to Moore, which indicates that he provided Moore with a copy of the

Turner/Finley brief and motion to withdraw. The letter also informs Moore

of his right to proceed pro se or with new counsel. We now address the merits

of Moore’s issue.

      Counsel’s brief identifies one issue: “Whether the trial counsel was

ineffective in failing to raise the issue of whether the trial court abused its

discretion in allowing evidence of a text message from [Moore’s] phone into

the record.” Turner/Finley Br. at 1.

      When reviewing the denial of relief under the PCRA, our review is limited

to determining “whether the PCRA court’s ruling is supported by the record

and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Presley, 193 A.3d 436, 442

(Pa.Super. 2018) (citation omitted).

      Counsel is presumed effective, and the petitioner has the burden of

proving otherwise. Thus, the petitioner must plead and prove: (1) the

underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) no reasonable basis existed for

counsel’s actions or failure to act; and (3) the petitioner suffered prejudice

because of counsel’s error such that there is a reasonable probability that the

                                       -4-
J-S23029-22

result of the proceeding would have been different absent such error. See

Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 804 (Pa. 2014). “A failure to satisfy

any prong of the ineffectiveness test requires rejection of the claim of

ineffectiveness.” Commonwealth v. Daniels, 963 A.2d 409, 419 (Pa. 2009).

      To authenticate an item of evidence, the proponent must produce

evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent

claims it is. Pa.R.E. 901(a). “[A]uthentication of electronic communications,

like documents, requires more than mere confirmation that the number or

address belonged to a particular person. Circumstantial evidence, which tends

to corroborate the identity of the sender, is required.” Commonwealth v.

Koch, 39 A.3d 996, 1005 (Pa.Super. 2011).

      Here, Moore maintains that trial counsel, who was also appellate

counsel, was ineffective for failing to include on appeal a challenge to the

authentication of the text message. This claim of ineffectiveness fails because

the underlying authentication issue lacks arguable merit.

      The   PCRA   court   concluded   that   the   Commonwealth        provided

circumstantial evidence supporting the authentication and admittance of the

text message:

         In the instant case, the text message was properly
         authenticated and admitted into evidence after the
         Commonwealth proffered a quantum and quality of evidence
         sufficient to meet the “relatively low burden of proof” to
         establish that the text message was what it purported to be,
         namely, a reference by [Moore] to the previous day’s attack
         on the victim. Specifically, the Commonwealth’s evidence
         established that the phone from which the text message was

                                     -5-
J-S23029-22

         sent belonged to [Moore], and was in [Moore’s] possession
         before being turned over by him to the police. Additionally,
         there was no allegation or evidence presented that someone
         else had access to the phone. Further, the message, sent
         the day after the attack on the victim, references “[a] lot of
         shit [that] went down,” indicates the sender’s belief that “its
         bad,” and expresses the senders “need to leave.” Taken
         together, this evidence was sufficient to support the Court’s
         conclusion that the text message had been properly
         authenticated.

PCRA Court Opinion, filed 2/16/22, at 6-7.

      We    discern   no   error.   The   Commonwealth      presented    sufficient

circumstantial evidence to support a finding that Moore sent the text message

to his girlfriend. As a result, the ineffectiveness claim predicated on the failure

to preserve on appeal a challenge to authentication is meritless. We therefore

affirm the order denying PCRA relief and grant the application to withdraw.

      Order affirmed. Application to withdraw granted.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/10/2023

                                       -6-