Commonwealth v. Washington
Decision Date | 22 June 2021 |
Docket Number | No. 593 EDA 2020,593 EDA 2020 |
Citation | 258 A.3d 544 (Table) |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Darrell WASHINGTON, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Appellant, Darrell Washington, appeals nunc pro tunc from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed his first petition brought pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA").1 We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On July 26, 2008, Appellant shot and killed the victim during a robbery. On February 28, 2011, a jury convicted Appellant of second-degree murder, robbery, and possessing instruments of crime ("PIC"). That same day, the court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment on the murder charge. The court also imposed a concurrent term of two and one-half to five years’ imprisonment for the PIC conviction. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on July 30, 2012, and our Supreme Court denied Appellant's petition for allowance of appeal on January 8, 2013. See Commonwealth v. Washington , 55 A.3d 150 (Pa.Super. 2012), appeal denied , 619 Pa. 679, 62 A.3d 380 (2013) (unpublished memorandum).
On January 3, 2014, Appellant timely filed a pro se PCRA petition. The court appointed counsel, who filed a motion to withdraw and "no-merit" letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner , 518 Pa. 491, 544 A.2d 927 (1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc ). In the "no-merit" letter, counsel listed Appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Specifically, Appellant alleged prior counsel failed to provide him with a copy of the trial transcript and failed to test the prosecutor's case in any meaningful way. Further, Appellant alleged direct appeal counsel was ineffective for failing to raise certain unspecified issues on appeal. On December 19, 2018, the court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing. Appellant did not file a pro se response to the Rule 907 notice. The court dismissed Appellant's PCRA petition and granted PCRA counsel's motion to withdraw on March 12, 2019.
Appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal, which this Court dismissed on July 17, 2019 for failure to file a brief. On August 8, 2019, current counsel entered his appearance in the PCRA court. On October 30, 2019, current counsel filed a PCRA petition on Appellant's behalf, seeking reinstatement of appellate rights nunc pro tunc . The court reinstated Appellant's appellate rights nunc pro tunc on January 14, 2020. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal nunc pro tunc on February 4, 2020. The PCRA court did not order Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained on appeal, and Appellant did not file one.
Appellant raises two issues for our review:
On appeal, Appellant presents new ineffectiveness arguments for the first time.2 Specifically, Appellant avers prior PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the following arguments in the PCRA court: (1) trial counsel's ineffectiveness for failing to seek suppression of identification testimony; (2) trial counsel's ineffectiveness for failing to request a certain jury instruction; and (3) direct appeal counsel's ineffectiveness for failing to challenge the admission of expert testimony. Although Appellant recognizes that Commonwealth v. Pitts , 603 Pa. 1, 981 A.2d 875 (2009), requires claims of PCRA counsel's ineffectiveness to be raised in response to a Rule 907 notice, Appellant suggests "it should be recognized as a violation of due process to hold a pro se defendant to such a stringent standard...." (Appellant's Brief at 19). Appellant concludes this Court must reverse the order dismissing his PCRA petition and remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing. We disagree.
This Court has addressed challenges to PCRA counsel's effectiveness as follows:
Commonwealth v. Betts , 240 A.3d 616, 621-22 (Pa.Super. 2020).
Instantly, the record confirms that Appellant failed to challenge prior PCRA counsel's effectiveness in a response to the Rule 907 notice. Thus, Appellant did not raise his claims...
To continue reading
Request your trial