Commonwealth v. Sinanan

• Decision Date: 06 January 2023
• Docket Number: 498 EDA 2021,499 EDA 2021
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ALLAN LESLIE SINANAN JR. Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ALLAN LESLIE SINANAN JR. Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
ALLAN LESLIE SINANAN JR. Appellant

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
ALLAN LESLIE SINANAN JR. Appellant

Nos. 498 EDA 2021, 499 EDA 2021

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

January 6, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 17, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-CR-0000169-2017, CP-48-CR-0004301-2016.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

BEFORE: OLSON, J., KING, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM

McCAFFERY, J.:

2

Allan Leslie Sinanan, Jr. (Appellant) appeals pro se from the orders^[1] entered in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his first, timely Post Conviction Relief Act^[2] (PCRA) petition. A jury convicted Appellant of eight counts each of possession of a controlled substance and possession with intent to deliver (PWID), three counts of criminal use of a communication facility, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia.^[3] The court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 11 to 22 years' incarceration. Appellant now raises a myriad of ineffective assistance of counsel claims. After careful review, we affirm.

As the parties are well acquainted with the facts of this case, which are fully set forth in the PCRA court's February 17, 2021, order, we need not recite

3

them herein. See Order, 2/17/21, at 2-3.^[4] The pertinent procedural history is as follows. Appellant was charged at Criminal Docket No. CP-48-CR-4301-2016 (Docket No. 4301-2016) with three counts of PWID, three counts of possession of a controlled substance, and three counts of criminal use of a communication facility. Additionally, he was charged at Criminal Docket No. CP-48-CR-0169-2017 (Docket No. 169-2017) with five counts of PWID, five counts of possession of a controlled substance, one count of drug paraphernalia, and one count of possession of a firearm prohibited.^[5] Id. at 1-2.

Appellant was represented by several attorneys throughout various stages of the criminal proceeding. Assistant Public Defender Rory B. Driscole, Esquire, represented him at both of his preliminary hearings. See Order, 2/17/21, at 3. Appellant requested that Attorney Driscole be removed from the matter, and the court eventually granted his request via a motion to withdraw by counsel. See id. at 3-4. Then, Alexander J. Karam, Jr., Esquire, was appointed to represent Appellant. See id. at 4. Attorney Karam filed two pre-trial motions, including a motion to suppress, but Appellant expressed dissatisfaction with his representation as well. See id. Attorney Karam also

4

filed a motion to withdraw, which was granted. See id. Consequently, Brian M. Monahan, Esquire, was assigned as legal counsel. See id. Attorney Monahan represented Appellant at the suppression hearing. See id.

However, shortly before his trial, Appellant "expressed his reluctance to move forward with Attorney Monahan and requested another attorney." Id. at 5. The trial court held a hearing regarding the matter, and denied Appellant's request to appoint new counsel. See id.

Appellant's jury trial began on September 6, 2017. Two days later, the jury convicted him of all charges. On September 22, 2017, the court imposed the following sentence: (1) at Docket No. 4301-2016, Appellant received a six-to-12-month sentence on each count of possession of a controlled substance; 12 to 24 months on each count of PWID, and 12 to 24 months on each count of criminal use of a communication facility; and (2) at Docket No. 169-2017, Appellant received 5 to 10 years on the count of PWID (cocaine), 27 to 33 months on the count of PWID (methylenedioxy-methamphetamine or MDMA), six to 12 years on the count of PWID (Oxycodone), 12 to 18 months on the count of PWID (Xanax), six to 16 months on the count of PWID (marijuana), and six to 12 months on each of the five counts of possession of a controlled substance. Appellant also received a sentence of probation on the charge of possession of drug paraphernalia. All of the sentences were to run concurrent to each other, with the exception of two PWID counts (cocaine and Oxycodone), which were to run consecutive to each other and to all other

5

counts. Appellant subsequently "filed post-sentence motions and requested that he represent himself moving forward." See Order, 2/17/21, at 5. On October 11, 2017, Attorney Monahan filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. The court held a Grazier^[6] hearing and permitted counsel to withdraw and Appellant to proceed pro se. See id.

Appellant filed a direct appeal with this Court,^[7] which affirmed his judgment of sentence on January 23, 2019. See Commonwealth v. Sinanan, 578 EDA 2018 (unpub. memo.) (Pa. Super. Jan. 23, 2019). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Appellant's subsequent petition for allowance of appeal on January 7, 2020, and the United States Supreme Court denied his petition for writ of certiorari on March 9, 2020. See Commonwealth v. Sinanan, 305 EAL 2019 (Pa. Jan. 7, 2020), cert. denied, 140 S.Ct. 1546 (U.S. 2020).

On February 5, 2020, Appellant filed a "Motion to Address Illegal Sentence," which the court treated as a first PCRA petition and appointed counsel. See Order, 2/17/21, at 5-6. Thereafter, Appellant filed numerous

6

pro se supplemental motions^[8] relating to requests for "PCRA relief and relief from a collateral forfeiture action by the Commonwealth." Id. at 6 (footnote omitted). "As a general[ ] summary, in his various filings [Appellant] raised ineffective assistan[ce] of counsel claims against each of his appointed attorneys, in addition[ ] he raised claims of various constitutional violations committed by the Commonwealth including attacking his warrantless arrest, the issuance of the search warrant, and the quality of the evidence introduced against him at trial." Id. The PCRA court held another Grazier hearing on June 22, 2020, and granted Appellant "relief by allowing him to proceed by self-representation." Id. at 6-7.

The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing on October 9, 2020. At the proceeding, Appellant and all three of his past attorneys appeared and testified. See Order, 2/17/21, at 7. Thereafter, Appellant continued to inundate the court with numerous pro se filings.^[9] On February 17, 2021, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant's petition. Appellant timely appealed and complied with the court's order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal. On March 22, 2021, the court filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)

7

opinion, which relied, in part, on its February 17, 2021, order. See PCRA Ct. Op., 3/22/21, at 1-2.

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

1) Whether the findings of the "P.C.R.A. Court" are supported by the record and free of legal error, where all three trial counselors were ineffective, for failure to present argument and defense to [Appellant]'s warrantless arrest and the lack of probable cause, because under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions

(1) [Appellant] was improperly stopped and searched requiring suppression of any evidence seized as a result of the search and

(2) the police action was not based on an exception to the requirement that an ARREST be based on a WARRANT issued by a neutral magistrate, after a determination that probable cause has been demonstrated

2) Whether the "P.C.R.A. Court" erred, by failing to adequately address a P.C.R.A. petition when it dismissed the petition, and that such error requires relief, where all three trial counselors were ineffective in neglecting to assert under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions: (1) that the prosecution and the magistrate circumvented policy and procedure, where procedural due process protections preclude prosecutors and magistrates from establishing a prima facie case at a Preliminary Hearing utilizing only hearsay testimony evidence that would not be admissible at trial, and (2) is therefore categorically incapable of demonstrating that the prosecution later will be able to prove [Appellant]'s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

3) Whether the findings of the "P.C.R.A. Court" are supported by the record; free of legal error; and adequately addressed when it dismissed the petition, where all three trial counselors were ineffective, for failing to move to suppress all evidence obtained from the Warrantless Arrest Affidavit (11/04/2016); Search Warrant Affidavit (11/04/2016); and the Warrantless Arrest Affidavit (12/27/2016), arguing that Officers established the Affidavits in violation of "Franks V. Delaware" because: (1) the Affiant omitted material information about the reliability of the unregistered confidential source, who was the primary source of the information, used to establish probable cause; (2) the Affiant omitted material facts to surveillance, video, and cell phone evidence, with the intent to make the affidavit misleading; and (3)

8

the Affiant included material information knowingly and intentionally, to a bag/jacket with drugs, being thrown on November 4th, the day of arrest?

4) Whether the "P.C.R.A. Court" erred, by failing to adequately address a P.C.R.A. petition when it dismissed the petition, and that such error requires relief, by neglecting [Appellant]'s claim, of whether [Appellant] received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, where "Brian M. Monahan," failed to impeach DEA Agent Joseph Labenberg, by introducing his testimony at trial from an earlier hearing (Suppression/Habeas Corpus), in which DEA Agent Joseph Labenberg gave two different testimonies to material evidence?

5) Whether the "P.C.R.A. Court" erred, by failing to adequately address a P.C.R.A. petition when it dismissed the petition, and that such error requires relief, by neglecting [Appellant]'s claim, of whether "Brian M. Monahan", was ineffective for

...