Commonwealth v. Hamilton

• Citation: 287 A.3d 844 (Table)
• Decision Date: 11 October 2022
• Docket Number: 233 EDA 2022
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Daquan HAMILTON, Appellant
• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

287 A.3d 844 (Table)

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.Daquan HAMILTON, Appellant

No. 233 EDA 2022

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed October 11, 2022

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:

Appellant, Daquan Hamilton, appeals from the post-conviction court's December 20, 2021 order denying his timely-filed petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541 - 9546. On appeal, Appellant contends that his trial counsel was ineffective and, thus, the court erred by denying his petition. After careful review, we affirm.

The facts of Appellant's underlying convictions were previously summarized by this Court, as follows:

On the evening of December 26, 2013, Appellant and Khaleef Jones visited an apartment complex in Pottstown. Appellant told Jones that he wanted to get his stuff out of one of the apartments. Steven Burns was inside the apartment with George Hashimbey and Angel Luna. When Appellant knocked on the door, Burns opened the door but would not let Appellant inside. N.T., 6/17/15, at 8-10, 90-96.

Appellant and Jones left the apartment building, but they returned shortly after midnight on the morning of December 27, 201[3]. Before entering the building, Appellant handed Jones a .380 caliber gun and armed himself with a silver revolver. Id. at 93-94. Appellant and Jones returned to Burns’ apartment, and Appellant told Jones to cover his face as they entered the elevator. They knocked on the apartment door, and Burns partially opened it. Appellant shoved his pistol into Burns’ abdomen and forced his way inside. Id. at 10-11, 90-96. Burns and Appellant fought on the floor inside the door. Appellant yelled, "Shoot the nigger." As they struggled, Appellant fired his silver pistol, killing Hashimbey. Id. at 12-14, 98-99. Burns testified that he saw Appellant shoot Hashimbey. Id. at 14-15. Jones fired one shot into Burns’ hip

and ran down the stairs. Jones testified that he heard two shots after exiting the apartment. Id. at 99. Burns went into the hallway to ask a neighbor for help, and he remained there until police and paramedics arrived. Id. at 12-17, 98-99. The Commonwealth's ballistics expert testified that the bullet recovered from Hashimbey's body came from a .357 caliber gun, a different caliber from the gun Jones was carrying. N.T., 6/16/15, at 50.

Approximately ninety minutes after the shooting, Philadelphia Police [Detective] William Lynch stopped Appellant's car in a high crime neighborhood in North Philadelphia. When [Detective] Lynch ran the tags, he discovered a "try-and-locate" alert. Appellant, who was a passenger in the car, ran when he saw the police lights, but Jones stayed inside. Police arrested both men and recovered a .380 caliber gun from Jones’ person during the arrest. N.T., 6/16/15, at 122-23. The police impounded the car and obtained a search warrant to search its passenger compartment. During the search, they recovered two cell phones and a fired .357 cartridge casing. N.T., 6/16/15, at 130-39. Subsequently, a Montgomery County detective obtained another search warrant to examine the contents of the cell phones.²

² Appellant sought to suppress the contents of his cell phone in pre-trial motions, which the trial court denied.

***

At the conclusion of trial, the Commonwealth introduced letters that Appellant sent Jones while both men were incarcerated following their arrest. The first letter suggested that both men claim that Burns let them enter the apartment immediately before the shooting, and that Appellant "just came to get my clothes and see my cousin." N.T., 6/18/15, at 21. "Nobody was [supposed] to get hurt," Appellant continued, but Burns caused the shootings by starting a fight with Appellant. Id. In a second letter, Appellant stated that the Commonwealth was not offering him a plea bargain and was threatening to charge him with second-degree murder. Id. at 22-23. Appellant continued:

I'm sorry for getting you in this shit. My lawyer said if I get on the stand, it would do more harm than good. Dam bro, I fucked up, but we can't cry over spilled milk ... I need you to get on the stand and blame everything on [Burns]. Keep your head up. Fuck these crackers.

Id. at 23.

During closing argument, defense counsel did not deny that Appellant was present in the apartment during the shootings. Instead, counsel contended that any actions that Appellant took were in self-defense. N.T., 6/18/15 at 74-93. The jury found Appellant guilty of second-degree murder, burglary[,] and other offenses.

Commonwealth v. Hamilton , No. 1477 EDA 2016, unpublished memorandum at 1-4 (Pa. Super. filed Sept. 18, 2018).

On February 9, 2016, Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole. He filed a timely direct appeal, and after this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence, our Supreme Court denied his subsequent petition for permission to appeal. See Commonwealth v. Hamilton , 198 A.3d 460 (Pa. Super. 2018), appeal denied , 207 A.3d 906 (Pa. 2019).

Appellant thereafter filed the timely, pro se PCRA petition underlying the present appeal, raising numerous claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. PCRA counsel was appointed but filed a petition to withdraw. Ultimately, the PCRA court issued an order denying relief on all of Appellant's claims except for two. It scheduled an evidentiary hearing to address those remaining issues and appointed new counsel to represent Appellant. Newlyappointed counsel filed an amended petition on Appellant's behalf raising several more claims, including a challenge to the legality of Appellant's burglary sentence. An evidentiary hearing was conducted on August 10, 2021. After the hearing, the court denied all of Appellant's issues except for his legality of sentencing challenge.¹

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and he complied with the PCRA court's order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. The PCRA court thereafter filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion. Herein, Appellant states three issues for our review:

I. Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to the try-and-locate testimony of Detective Lynch because no evidence was presented to show that the Commonwealth had a reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle?

II. Was trial counsel ineffective for not requesting the court to charge on simple assault because simple assault was the crime that the court instructed the jury that ... [A]ppellant intended to commit while instructing the jury on the charge of burglary?

III. Was trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to the Assistant District Attorney's argument that the testimony of Khaleef Jones and Steven Burns was truthful?

Appellant's Brief at 3 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

"This Court's standard of review from the grant or denial of post-conviction relief is limited to examining whether the lower court's determination is supported by the evidence of record and whether it is free of legal error." Commonwealth v. Morales , 701 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa. 1997) (citing Commonwealth v. Travaglia , 661 A.2d 352, 356 n.4 (Pa. 1995) ). Where, as here, a petitioner claims that he or she received ineffective assistance of counsel, our Supreme Court has directed that the following standards apply:

[A] PCRA petitioner will be granted relief only when he proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his conviction or sentence resulted from the "[i]neffective 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." 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(ii). "Counsel is presumed effective, and to rebut that presumption, the PCRA petitioner must demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient and that such deficiency prejudiced him." [ Commonwealth v. ] Colavita , ... 993 A.2d [874,] 886 [(Pa. 2010)] (citing Strickland [v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 ... (1984) ]). In Pennsylvania, we have refined the Strickland performance and prejudice test into a three-part inquiry. See [ Commonwealth v. ] Pierce , [527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) ]. Thus, to prove counsel ineffective, the petitioner must show that: (1) his underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) counsel had no reasonable basis for his action or inaction; and (3) the petitioner suffered actual prejudice as a result. Commonwealth v. Ali , ... 10 A.3d 282, 291 (Pa. 2010). "If a petitioner fails to prove any of these prongs, his claim fails." Commonwealth v. Simpson , ... 66 A.3d 253, 260 ([Pa.] 2013) (citation omitted). Generally, counsel's assistance is deemed constitutionally effective if he chose a particular course of conduct that had some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client's interests. See Ali, supra . Where matters of strategy and tactics are concerned, "a finding that a chosen strategy lacked a reasonable basis is not warranted unless it can be concluded that an alternative not chosen offered a potential for success substantially greater than the course actually pursued." Colavita , ... 993 A.2d at 887 (quotation and quotation marks omitted). To demonstrate prejudice, the petitioner must show that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different." Commonwealth v. King , ... 57 A.3d 607, 613 ([Pa.] 2012) (quotation, quotation marks, and citation omitted). " ‘[A] reasonable probability is a probability that is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding.’ " Ali , ... 10 A.3d at 291 (quoting Commonwealth v. Collins , ... 957 A.2d 237, 244 ([Pa.] 2008) (citing Strickland , 466 U.S. at 694....)).

Commonwealth v. Spotz , 84 A.3d 294, 311-12 (Pa. 2014).

Appellant first argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object, at the suppression hearing, to Detective Lynch's testimony that he stopped the vehicle in which Appellant was a passenger after "he ran the...