Commonwealth v. Towles

• Docket Number: 796 CAP,J-87-2022
• Decision Date: 22 August 2023
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. JAKEEM LYDELL TOWLES, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. JAKEEM LYDELL TOWLES, Appellant

No. 796 CAP

No. J-87-2022

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

August 22, 2023

SUBMITTED: December 2, 2022

Appeal from the Order entered on May 5, 2022 in the Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County, Criminal Division at No CP-36-CR-0002879-2010.

TODD C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, JJ.

OPINION

BROBSON JUSTICE

This is a capital case in which Jakeem Lydell Towles (Towles) appeals from an order dismissing his second petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 9541-9546. In ordering dismissal, the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County (PCRA court) concluded that Towles' petition was untimely filed and, alternatively, without merit. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 7, 2010, Towles and his friend, Antwain Robinson (Robinson), took a bus from Lancaster to Columbia, Pennsylvania, where the Mighty Dog Family Fun Center (Center) was hosting a local rap performance by Cornell Anton Stewart, Jr., (Stewart) and John Wright (Wright) that night. Towles' cousin, Tyrone Hunter (Hunter), lived in an apartment close to the Center. Throughout the evening following the arrival of Towles and Robinson in Columbia, the men drank alcohol and smoked marijuana, walking between the Center, Hunter's apartment, and another venue several times. At some point, Towles took Hunter's handgun from the apartment and hid it in a nearby alley.

Stewart and Wright started their performance at the Center sometime after 10:00 p.m. After the performance began, however, Towles interrupted it by grabbing Wright's microphone. An altercation ensued, with Wright hitting Towles at least once. Security and other individuals separated the men. Security then escorted Towles and Robinson out the front of the Center and escorted Wright and Stewart out the back of the Center. After being escorted out, Towles retrieved the gun he had hidden earlier, went to the alleyway behind the Center, and fired three shots at Wright and Stewart. One of the bullets struck Stewart in the head. Towles and Robinson then fled the scene in different directions but reunited at an apartment complex, where they asked Arpasia Bridgman (Bridgman) for a ride back to Lancaster. Bridgman, who was leaving for the evening with two friends, agreed. During the trip, Towles made incriminating statements and warned the occupants of the vehicle (including Robinson) not to talk. Stewart ultimately died from the gunshot wound to his head.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth) charged Towles with the homicide of Stewart, the attempted homicide of Wright, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The Commonwealth filed its notice of an aggravating circumstance and intent to seek the death penalty. The matter proceeded to a jury trial, at which Robinson, Hunter, Wright, Bridgman, and others testified for the Commonwealth. Following trial, the jury found Towles guilty of first-degree murder and attempted homicide.^[1] At the penalty phase, the jury returned a sentence of death. The trial court formally imposed sentence on June 11, 2012. Towles then filed a post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied. This Court affirmed Towles' judgment of sentence on direct appeal on September 22, 2014, and the United States Supreme Court denied Towles' subsequent petition for writ of certiorari on March 2, 2015. Commonwealth v. Towles (Towles I), 106 A.3d 591 (Pa. 2014), cert. denied, 574 U.S. 1193 (2015).^[2] Towles subsequently filed his first PCRA petition, which, notably, included a claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to cross-examine Robinson on discrepancies between statements Robinson gave to police after the incident and for stipulating at trial that Robinson had not told police everything in his first statement.^[3] See Commonwealth v. Towles (Towles II), 208 A.3d 988, 1007-08 (Pa. 2019). The PCRA court denied Towles' PCRA petition following a hearing (First PCRA Hearing), and, on May 31, 2019, this Court affirmed the PCRA court's denial of relief. Id. at 992, 1009.

On May 4, 2020, Towles filed his second PCRA petition.^[4] Therein, Towles claimed that the Commonwealth had made threats and promises to Robinson to induce him to testify against Towles at trial and violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),^[5] and its progeny by failing to disclose that information. In apparent recognition of the facial untimeliness of his second PCRA petition,^[6] Towles asserted that his petition met the so-called "governmental interference" and "newly discovered facts" timeliness exceptions set forth in Section 9545(b)(1)(i)-(ii) of the PCRA, 42 Pa. C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(ii). Towles further claimed that he acted with due diligence in asserting his claim within the one-year time limit under Section 9545(b)(2) of the PCRA, 42 Pa. C.S. § 9545(b)(2). Towles also requested a hearing and filed an appendix to his second PCRA petition. The appendix contained an affidavit from Robinson, which is dated March 5, 2020, and provides:

My name is Antwain Robinson. I testified at Jakeem Towles['] trial in Lancaster. I was with Jakeem the night of the incident. I don't remember all the details of that day. What I do remember is that the investigators threatened me that if I did not cooperate with them and testify at Jakeem Towles'[] trial, I could be charged with crimes related to the incident and could go to jail. I believed them and I was scared. So I did testify at the trial.

(Original Record (O.R.), Item No. 81, Appendix to Petition, Ex. 1.) The appendix also contained two memoranda exchanged between Towles' trial counsel and an investigator from the PD's Office, Peter Glatfelter (Glatfelter), indicating that Glatfelter attempted to speak to Robinson about the incident twice before trial but was not successful. In the first memorandum, Glatfelter explained that on April 25, 2011, he asked Robinson-who had visited the PD's Office for purposes "of obtaining an attorney for outstanding charges" pending against him-if Robinson would speak to him about the incident, but "Robinson stated he ha[d] been told that he is not to talk to anyone about that. [Glatfelter] asked [Robinson] who told him that and when," but Robinson just stated that "[t]hey told me not to talk to anyone" and "would not explain who '[t]hey' were," so Glatfelter did not conduct an interview. (O.R., Item No. 81, Appendix to Petition, Ex. 2.) In the second memorandum, Glatfelter indicated that he spoke to Robinson on June 21, 2011, "on the street," explaining that he was not "trying to [j]am [Robinson] up in any way" and "only want[ed] to talk about the drinking and smoking," and that he gave Robinson his contact information "as [Robinson] did not seem real comfortable talking to [Glatfelter] on the street." (O.R., Item No. 81, Appendix to Petition, Ex. 3.)

The Commonwealth filed a response to Towles' second PCRA petition. The Commonwealth first claimed that the petition was untimely filed because Towles failed to demonstrate that he acted with due diligence in obtaining Robinson's affidavit to establish both the "governmental interference" exception and the "newly discovered facts" exception. The Commonwealth also argued that Towles' Brady claim lacked merit. Preliminarily, the Commonwealth disputed that the Commonwealth had threatened Robinson and that the Commonwealth suppressed such evidence. In support, the Commonwealth attached to its response an affidavit from former First Assistant District Attorney Christopher P. Larsen (DA Larsen), who was tasked with aiding the investigation of the incident and prosecuting Towles. That affidavit provides, in relevant part:

1. I served as an Assistant District Attorney from 2000-2008 and as the First Assistant District Attorney from 2008-2019 for Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.

2. In my capacity as First Assistant District Attorney I was assigned to assist in the investigation into the shooting death of . . . Stewart, as well as prosecute the criminal homicide charge against . . . Towles for that murder.

3. I am familiar with the investigation, case preparation, evidence, and witnesses involved in the prosecution of . . . Towles . . . .

4. In the course of the investigation, a witness, . . . Robinson, came forward. . . . Robinson came forward through his mother, who reached out to a Lancaster Bureau of Police detective with whom . . . Robinson was familiar from a prior investigation in which . . . Robinson was the victim of an assault.

5. During the investigation and case preparation I had numerous occasions to interact with . . . Robinson. At all times during our interactions, . . . Robinson was a cooperative witness and at no time were any threats made by myself or, to my knowledge, any of the investigating officers or detectives in order to compel him to testify.

6. At no time did . . . Robinson articulate or display concern regarding any alleged threats from any member of law enforcement. The only concerns ever expressed by . . . Robinson were whether he could potentially be in trouble for his involvement and what repercussions he may face for being a witness for the prosecution. The response to both concerns was that . . . Robinson had to be truthful.

(O.R., Item No. 85, Exhibit A.) The Commonwealth also argued that Towles' Brady claim lacked merit because, even assuming that the Commonwealth had threatened Robinson to induce his trial testimony, such evidence was not material in the instant matter.

The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing on November 16, 2021. Towles subpoenaed Robinson to appear at the hearing, but Robinson refused service of the subpoena and failed to appear. DA Larsen and Dennis Arnold (Detective Arnold),...