Commonwealth v. Watkins

• Decision Date: 29 December 2014
• Docket Number: No. 665 CAP,665 CAP
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Gerald WATKINS, Appellant.

108 A.3d 692

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee

v.Gerald WATKINS, Appellant.

No. 665 CAP

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted April 29, 2013.

Decided Dec. 29, 2014.

Cristi A. Charpentier, Esq., Maria Katherine Pulzetti, Esq., Federal Community Defender Office, Eastern District of PA, for Gerald Watkins.

Ronald Michael Wabby Jr., Esq., Allegheny County District Attorney's Office, Amy Zapp, Esq., PA Office of Attorney General, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, STEVENS, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Gerald Watkins appeals from the denial of his petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”),¹ which was filed after this Court's affirmance of his direct appeal from three death sentences imposed following his conviction for murdering his girlfriend, their newborn daughter, and his girlfriend's son. We affirm the order of the PCRA court.

In December 1994, Appellant was charged by information with three counts of criminal homicide for the shooting deaths, on July 20, 1994, of his girlfriend, Beth Ann Anderson; their 18–day–old daughter, Melanie Watkins; and Ms. Anderson's nine-year-old son, Charles Kevin Kelly, Jr.² The FBI coordinated a search for Appellant, placing him on the ten most wanted fugitive list in March 1995. Appellant was arrested in New York City in May 1995, and, on August 3, 1995, Pittsburgh Detectives Dennis Logan and Richard McDonald drove him back to Allegheny County to stand trial for the murders. Prior to trial, Appellant filed an omnibus motion seeking, inter alia, to suppress inculpatory statements he had made to the detectives on the trip from New York City to Allegheny County. At the ensuing hearing, Appellant testified that he had not discussed the murder charges against him with the detectives during the trip and had not signed a statement purporting to bear his signature. The trial court denied Appellant's motion, concluding that the issue raised by Appellant did not present a constitutional question, but rather, was a question of credibility, reserved for the jury. See Notes of Testimony (“N.T.”) Suppression Hearing, 12/9/96, at 73–101.

Trial commenced immediately after the suppression hearing on December 9, 1996, and the guilt phase continued for four days. The Commonwealth presented the following testimony: (i) Monique Kohlman had been on the phone with Ms. Anderson when Appellant arrived at Ms. Anderson's home; Ms. Kohlman spoke briefly with him by phone, heard sounds of a struggle, called the police at Ms. Anderson's request, and then went to the home where she observed the victims' bodies; (ii) Ronnie Williams, one of Ms. Anderson's neighbors, saw Appellant, whom he recognized as Ms. Anderson's boyfriend, on the porch of Ms. Anderson's home shortly before the murders; (iii) the police officers who responded to the report of a shooting described their observations and processing of the crime scene; (iv) Leon Rozin, M.D., a forensic pathologist who performed autopsies of the victims, determined that each had died of multiple gunshot wounds from bullets fired at close range; (v) Dr. Robert Levine, from the Allegheny County Crime Lab, determined that all the spent cartridge casings at the scene were from the same semi-automatic .22 caliber firearm; (vi) Keith Platt, a friend of Appellant, was threatened by Appellant when, following the murders, he declined Appellant's request to ask several mutual acquaintances to repay money they allegedly owed Appellant; (vii) Detective Logan summarized a statement Appellant made in which he admitted that he had killed the three victims, and claimed that the killings were not premeditated, but rather were prompted by Ms. Anderson's spurning of his marriage proposal and his jealousy of another man.

The defense theory at trial was that drug dealers had committed the murders in retaliation against Appellant for his failure to pay for a drug transaction. Appellant testified on his own behalf, denying involvement in the murders, asserting that all the Commonwealth's witnesses were lying, and contending that the detectives had fabricated his inculpatory written statement and forged his signature on that statement. Two character witnesses testified for the defense regarding Appellant's reputation as a peaceable, non-violent person.

The jury found Appellant guilty of three counts of first-degree murder. Following a penalty hearing, on December 13, 1996, the jury found two aggravating circumstances relative to all three victims: Appellant was convicted of another offense for which a sentence of life imprisonment or death was imposable, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(10) ; and Appellant was convicted of another murder, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(11). In addition, the jury found a third aggravating circumstance respecting the murders of the two child victims: the victim was less than twelve years of age, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(16). The jury also found the “catchall” mitigating circumstance, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(e)(8). More specifically, at least one juror found the following mitigating factors with regard to all three victims: Appellant was non-violent until July 20, 1994; was known to attend church; and has the ability to love. With regard to the murder of his daughter Melanie Watkins, at least one juror found an additional mitigating circumstance: Appellant loves his daughters. Finding that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances as to each murder, the jury determined that Appellant should be sentenced to death. The court formally imposed the three death sentences and, on direct appeal, this Court affirmed Appellant's judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Watkins, 577 Pa. 194, 843 A.2d 1203 (2003).³

In October 2005, Appellant filed a pro se petition seeking PCRA relief. The court granted the Federal Community Defender Office (“FCDO”) permission to represent Appellant,⁴ and on November 13, 2006, the FCDO filed an amended petition. After the PCRA court issued a notice of intent to dismiss and an accompanying memorandum opinion, Appellant amended his petition to address the defects the PCRA court had identified. See PCRA Court Order and Opinion, dated 3/14/08. The PCRA court then issued an order dismissing seventeen of Appellant's claims and scheduling an evidentiary hearing on the remaining four claims. See PCRA Court Order, dated 2/13/09. After conducting the evidentiary hearing, the PCRA court denied relief on June 29, 2012.

In this appeal, Appellant has raised fifteen issues, most of which include allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. The issues, as stated by Appellant, are:

I. Were the statements introduced against Appellant at trial unreliable and involuntary?

II. Were jurors improperly excused without an adequate inquiry into their ability to impose the death penalty?

III. Did the Commonwealth improperly exercise peremptory challenges to strike female venirepersons from jury service?

IV. Did the Commonwealth violate due process by suppressing material exculpatory evidence?

V. Were trial counsel ineffective in failing to investigate and present evidence at both the guilt-innocence and penalty phases of trial?

VI. Did the introduction and consideration of improper aggravating victim-impact evidence and argument render Appellant's death sentence arbitrary and capricious?

VII. Must Appellant's convictions and death sentences be vacated, because inflammatory and highly prejudicial evidence on the manner of death was presented?

VIII. Did the trial court err when it refused to admit photographs of Appellant?

IX. Should Appellant's death sentences be vacated because the jury was not instructed that life imprisonment is without possibility of parole?

X. Is Appellant entitled to relief from his sentence of death because of penalty phase jury instruction errors?

XI. Did the trial court improperly permit the sentencing jury to consider and weigh the same conduct as evidence of multiple aggravating factors?

XII. Was Appellant denied a fair trial before an impartial tribunal?

XIII. Is Appellant entitled to a new trial and sentencing proceeding because of the prejudicial effects of the cumulative errors in this case?

XIV. Was Appellant denied full, fair and reliable PCRA review?

XV. Did the PCRA court err in denying Appellant's motion for compulsory mental health evaluation?

Appellant's Brief at 1–2.

Before addressing the issues, we set forth some general principles. In reviewing the denial of PCRA relief, we examine whether the PCRA court's determinations are supported by the record and are free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Roney, 622 Pa. 1, 79 A.3d 595, 603 (2013). The PCRA court's credibility determinations, when supported by the record, are binding on this Court; however, we apply a de novo standard of review to the PCRA court's legal conclusions. Id.

In order to obtain collateral relief, a petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the circumstances enumerated in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2). These circumstances include a violation of the Pennsylvania or United States Constitution or ineffectiveness of counsel, either of which “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)(i) and (ii). In addition, a petitioner must show that the claims of error have not been previously litigated or waived. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(3). An issue has been previously litigated if “the highest appellate court in which the petitioner could have had review as a matter of right has ruled on the merits of the issue.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(a)(2). An issue has been waived “if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, during unitary review, on appeal or in a prior state post[-]conviction proceeding.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b).

With regard specifically to the claims sounding in ineffective assistance of counsel, we presume that c...