Commonwealth v. Hughes

• Docket Number: 1068 EDA 2022,J-S18033-23
• Decision Date: 26 July 2023
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. PATRICK T. HUGHES Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. PATRICK T. HUGHES Appellant

No. 1068 EDA 2022

No. J-S18033-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

July 26, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 15, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-CR-0001892-2015

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS P.J.E.^[*]

MEMORANDUM

STEVENS, P.J.E.

Appellant Patrick T. Hughes appeals the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County denying his petition pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).^[1] After careful review, we affirm.

This Court summarized the factual background of the case as follows on direct appeal:

On November 23, 2012, the narcotics division of the Easton Police Department was involved in an ongoing investigation targeting the home of Corey Reavis. That day, officers conducted a controlled purchase of heroin from Appellant using a confidential informant. Police officers observed Appellant leave Reavis's home, walk to the informant engage in a brief hand-to-hand transaction, and return to Reavis's home. When Appellant returned to Reavis's home, police observed Appellant interact with individuals on the front porch, including Omar Robinson. Police took photographs of Appellant, Robinson, and the transaction. Police also observed Robinson's minivan parked outside the residence.

Later that day, Appellant and Robinson shot and killed Ervin Holton ("Victim") in Easton.^[FN2] A witness who was driving near the scene called 911 to report the shooting. She stated that, after hearing the gunshots, she saw two individuals in dark clothing running toward a nearby minivan. The Victim died from multiple gunshot wounds; ballistics evidence confirmed that there were two shooters.

[FN2: The Victim and Appellant were rival drug dealers and may have been in a dispute about Nicole Greene, a woman they both dated.]

During the subsequent investigation, detectives from the Easton Police Department obtained consistent surveillance video that showed two individuals exit a minivan one block from the crime scene, walk towards the location of the shooting, and shortly thereafter, run back towards the minivan and drive away. Police officers also learned that Robinson's girlfriend, Lisa Doorley, owned the minivan.

When police officers located the minivan at Robinson's home, which he shared with Doorley, Robinson confirmed that only he and Doorley drive the minivan, and that he did not allow anyone else to drive the minivan. Upon confirming that he had been driving the minivan on the night of the murder, Robinson started crying. Police searched the minivan with Doorley's consent and found gunshot residue on the steering wheel and the driver's side interior door handle.

Homicide detectives also learned that Appellant and Robinson had spent much of the day together before the murder. Reavis confirmed that he had been hanging out with Appellant and Robinson that day. Reavis admitted that he had driven and dropped off the Victim at a store near the scene of the murder shortly before Appellant and Robinson murdered him.

Also, cell phone records from Appellant and Robinson confirmed their whereabouts in south Easton, where the shooting occurred, and their close proximity to the area and each other when they placed the calls. The eyewitness called 911 at 5:39 P.M., and the cell phone records showed that Appellant and Robinson made numerous calls to Reavis before and after the murder. All calls stopped at the precise time of the shooting, consistent with the surveillance video.

During the investigation, Appellant provided several different, inconsistent, and unsubstantiated alibis to police investigators. After his arrest, Appellant made several incriminating statements to fellow inmates (1) regarding his motive for the murder, and (2) claiming that he and his men were responsible for the murder. Relevant to this appeal, Appellant provided two recorded statements to police after reading and waiving his Miranda rights greeon December 5, 2012, and December 4, 2014.

Commonwealth v. Hughes, 2853 EDA 2017, at *1-2 (Pa.Super. Apr. 3, 2019) (unpublished memorandum).

Appellant and Robinson were charged with homicide and criminal conspiracy in relation to the victim's shooting death. Thereafter, Appellant and Robinson were jointly tried in an eight-day trial at which the Commonwealth presented numerous witnesses including Reavis, Greene, Gregory Mack, as well as Appellant's two fellow inmates (James Martin and Timothy Graves).

On January 20, 2017, the jury convicted Appellant of first-degree murder and conspiracy. On February 28, 2017, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment without parole. Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied on August 4, 2017. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on April 3, 2019, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Appellant's petition for allowance of appeal on September 10, 2019, and the Supreme Court of the United States denied Appellant's petition for Writ of Certiorari on February 24, 2020.^[2]

On December 11, 2020, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition.^[3]Thereafter, the PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition on Appellant's behalf on April 22, 2021. Appellant claimed he discovered that the prosecution had violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) as it failed to disclose the defense before trial that one of the Commonwealth's witnesses, Gregory Mack, received favorable treatment in exchange for his testimony against Appellant. Mack had testified at Appellant's trial that Appellant had bragged to him that the murder of Ervin Holton was "his work." Notes of Testimony (N.T.), Trial, 1/13/17, at 177-79.

On October 7, 2021, the PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing. The Commonwealth first presented Attorney Patricia Mulqueen, an Assistant District Attorney in Northampton County who was the assigned prosecutor for Mack's drug charges docketed at CP-48-CR-0002398-2014. ADA Mulqueen recalled that although Mack was originally charged with two felony drug charges, Mack was permitted to plead to a misdemeanor possession charge, and Mack received a probationary sentence. Notes of Testimony (N.T.), PCRA hearing, 10/7/21, at 5-8, 23.

However, ADA Mulqueen averred that her decision to give Mack a plea deal was not based on his agreement to testify for the prosecution at Appellant's subsequent murder trial. ADA Mulqueen testified that Mack's cooperation with the prosecution in Appellant's homicide case had "nothing to do with the guilty plea, the reasons why I gave him the misdemeanor offense." Id. at 8-10. ADA Mulqueen asserted that if Mack's guilty plea had been conditioned on his testimony at Appellant's trial, he would not have been allowed to enter his guilty plea before Appellant's trial began. Id. at 24-25.

Instead, ADA Mulqueen averred that she permitted Mack to enter this negotiated plea deal as she believed that Mack did not normally sell drugs, but only started to sell drugs due to financial difficulties he experienced after losing his job. Id. at 18-19. ADA Mulqueen characterized Mack was an "older gentleman" and a "nice guy" without any prior drug charges, who had been remorseful and cooperative with authorities in his own prosecution. Id. at 23-24. ADA Mulqueen remembered that the investigating detective had agreed with her decision to allow Mack to plead to the lesser charge. Id.

ADA Mulqueen was able to independently recall the circumstances of his plea arrangement as she found Mack's case to be "unique." Id. at 18. She explained that she had debated whether to drop the felony charges out of mercy towards Mack as there was a risk that he could reoffend. Id. at 18-19. ADA Mulqueen found Mack's case had been memorable because, upon her decision to allow Mack to plead to the misdemeanor charge, Mack's wife had expressed gratitude to ADA Mulqueen in court and personally thanked her on behalf of her family. Id.

Upon questioning by the trial court, ADA Mulqueen agreed that Mack's sentencing sheet states that a condition of Mack's probation was to "cooperate with police in criminal matter." Id. at 26; Defendant's Exhibit 1. ADA Mulqueen noted that Mack's criminal docket sheet was made accessible to the public, including trial counsel. N.T. at 27.

The Commonwealth also presented the testimony of Appellant's trial counsel, Attorney Brian Monahan. As Attorney Monahan had not reviewed Appellant's file before the PCRA hearing, he could not recall Mack's testimony at Appellant's trial and was not aware of whether he was notified that the prosecution had given Mack a plea deal on unrelated charges. Id. at 28, 31, 34. Nevertheless, Attorney Monahan claimed that if he had received information that a prosecution witness had received a favorable plea deal from the Commonwealth, he would have used such information to impeach that witness's credibility on cross-examination. Id. at 32-33.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the PCRA court denied Appellant's petition. Appellant filed a timely appeal and complied with the PCRA court's directions to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

On July 25, 2022, Appellant filed an application to proceed pro se on appeal. On August 22, 2022, this Court remanded this case for the PCRA court to conduct a hearing pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) to determine whether Appellant's waiver of counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Thereafter, the trial court determined that Appellant's decision to proceed pro se was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The parties subsequently filed briefs on...