Court Opinion

ID: 9881101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-29 17:09:44.741937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:59:03.284800
License: Public Domain

J-S31024-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA              :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                           :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                           :
              v.                           :
                                           :
                                           :
 CALVIN MORRIS                             :
                                           :
                    Appellant              :   No. 1464 EDA 2022

             Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 26, 2022
            In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
             Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0003804-2016

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:                      FILED SEPTEMBER 29, 2023

      Appellant, Calvin Morris, appeals from the April 26, 2022 order entered

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, dismissing his second

amended petition for collateral relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act

(“PCRA”), 42 P.C.R.A. §§ 9541-9546. Appellant contends his trial counsel was

ineffective for failing to litigate a motion to suppress. Although the PCRA court

originally denied Appellant’s petition, the court subsequently issued a Rule

1925(a) opinion explaining that, “considering the issues as framed in the

petitions in conjunction with those framed on appeal,” the court had reached

a different conclusion. Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 9/7/22, at 10. Finding no error
J-S31024-23

in the PCRA court’s revised determination, we vacate the April 26, 2022 order

and remand.1

       Briefly, after an April 28, 2017 bench trial, Appellant was convicted of

various firearms violations stemming from a March 31, 2016 vehicle stop. His

post-sentence motions were denied and he filed a direct appeal to this Court.

On April 10, 2019, we affirmed the judgment of sentence. Our Supreme Court

denied his petition for allowance of appeal on August 19, 2019.

       Appellant filed a timely PCRA petition on October 11, 2019, contending

that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to litigate a motion to suppress.

Counsel was appointed and filed an amended PCRA petition on February 17

2021, reiterating the same issue.              The Commonwealth filed a motion to

dismiss. The PCRA court conducted an evidentiary hearing in December 2021.

Based on information elicited during the proceedings, the court permitted

Appellant to file a second amended petition.             In that petition, Appellant

repeated the claim relating to the failure to litigate a motion to suppress and

added claims of ineffectiveness for failure to file a motion to disclose a

____________________________________________

1 We recognize that:

       Under the applicable standard of review, we must determine
       whether the ruling of the PCRA court is supported by the record
       and is free of legal error.        The PCRA court’s credibility
       determinations, when supported by the record, are binding on this
       Court. However, this Court applies a de novo standard of review
       to the PCRA court’s legal conclusions.

Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244, 259 (Pa. 2011) (citations omitted).

                                           -2-
J-S31024-23

confidential informant and for failure to impeach the credibility of a police

officer relating to his source of information that Appellant possessed a firearm.

Second Amended PCRA Petition, 1/18/22, at ¶ 2.                 In response, the

Commonwealth filed a second motion to dismiss.

        The PCRA court dismissed the petition on April 26, 2022. This timely

appeal followed. Both Appellant and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P.

1925.

        In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the PCRA court explained that the issues as

framed in Appellant’s first and second amended petition did not merit a finding

of trial counsel ineffectiveness.     Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 9/7/22, at 10.

However, the court noted that PCRA counsel argued on appeal not just that

trial counsel was ineffective for failing to litigate a motion to suppress

evidence, but also that counsel was ineffective for failing to question the

arresting officers about the existence of a confidential informant whose

information led to the traffic stop and Appellant’s arrest. “Whether or not a

CI actually existed is a question that was raised as a result of Officer Langford’s

testimony at the evidentiary hearing.” Id. “While this is not an argument

made in the aforesaid PCRA petition, it is part and parcel of Appellant’s claim

concerning trial counsel’s failure to act.”     Id. at 11.     The court further

determined that Appellant was prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness and

that there was a reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the error.

Id. at 12.

                                       -3-
J-S31024-23

       In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the PCRA court thoroughly recounted the

procedural and factual background of the case and explained in detail, with

citation to legal authority, the basis for the initial dismissal of Appellant’s

petition. The court then explained that matters raised during the December

2021 evidentiary hearing, coupled with the framing of issues being raised in

this appeal, caused the court to reach a different conclusion, i.e., that absent

counsel’s failure to act, “there is a reasonable probability that a suppression

motion would have been granted.” Id. at 12.2

       The Commonwealth does not challenge the PCRA court’s assessment of

the potential for PCRA relief based on an argument not originally raised on

appeal, nor does the Commonwealth argue against a remand.             However,

because PCRA counsel failed to argue the issue that the PCRA court now finds

to have merit, and because PCRA counsel cannot raise his own ineffectiveness

based on the failure to raise an issue before the court below, the

Commonwealth suggests that new counsel be appointed on remand.

Commonwealth Brief at 8-9 (citing Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d

381, 398, 401 (Pa. 2021)).

____________________________________________

2 On February 23, 2023, Appellant filed an application with this Court seeking

a remand to the PCRA court for reconsideration. By order entered on March
16, 2023, we denied the application for remand without prejudice to
Appellant’s right to raise the issue again in his appellate brief.

                                           -4-
J-S31024-23

      Based on our review of the record, the PCRA court’s Rule 1925(a)

opinion, and the relevant authorities, we agree with the PCRA court that its

order of dismissal should be vacated and the case remanded to the PCRA court

for further proceedings.   Moreover, we agree with the Commonwealth that

new counsel should be appointed on remand.         We hereby adopt the PCRA

court’s September 7, 2022 opinion as our own and incorporate it herein by

reference as if fully set forth. In the event of any further filings, the parties

shall append a copy of the September 7, 2022 opinion to their filings.

      Order vacated. Case remanded for further proceedings in accordance

with this Memorandum. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/29/2023

                                      -5-
0052_Opinion
               Circulated 09/08/2023 03:24 PM