Com. v. Fulmer, K.

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedDecember 29, 2015
Docket717 EDA 2015
StatusUnpublished

This text of Com. v. Fulmer, K. (Com. v. Fulmer, K.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Com. v. Fulmer, K., (Pa. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

J-S63028-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v.

KEITH E. FULMER

Appellant No. 717 EDA 2015

Appeal from the PCRA Order February 25, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-CR-0002971-2008

BEFORE: DONOHUE, J., MUNDY, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: FILED DECEMBER 29, 2015

Appellant, Keith E. Fulmer, appeals from the order entered February

25, 2015, dismissing his first petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction

Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546 (PCRA). After careful consideration,

we affirm based on the thorough and well-supported opinion of the

Honorable David F. Bortner.

The PCRA court has fully summarized the procedural history of this

case, which we adopt and need not restate here.1 PCRA Court Opinion,

2/25/15, at 1-2. On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues for our

review. ____________________________________________ 1 Appellant and the PCRA court are compliant with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925. In its Rule 1925(a) opinion the PCRA court referenced its February 25, 2015 opinion that accompanied its dismissal order as containing its reasons for denying Appellant relief. J-S63028-15

I. Whether [the] trial court erred in dismissing [Appellant’s] claim that the ten year mandatory sentence pursuant 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 9718(a)(1) was unconstitutional by ruling that his claim cannot be applied retroactively as this claim was not pending during his direct appeal?

II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

A. Whether appellate counsel, who also served as trial counsel, rendered ineffective assistance for failing to properly present, litigate, preserve, and raise on direct appeal, the trial court’s ruling to exclude evidence that the complainant, A.G., was engaged in sexual conduct with [Appellant’s] son as admissible to support the complainant’s motive to testify falsely regarding the alleged sexual contact with [Appellant].

B. Whether trial counsel/appellate counsel, rendered ineffective assistance in his handling of a prosecution witness for (a) failing to object to the testimony of the mother of complainant’s friend who stated that the complainant was “honest,” as an attempt to improperly bolster the credibility of the complainant (b) failing to cross-examine the witness regarding a motive for the complainant’s accusations and (c) trial counsel’s failure to cross-examine the witness regarding her knowledge of criminal investigation into a crime committed by the complainant?

C. Whether trial counsel/appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to properly object to hearsay statements and/or raise on direct appeal several inadmissible hearsay statements?

(1) Whether trial counsel/appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to argue on appeal the

-2- J-S63028-15

objection raised regarding the excited utterance by the complainant to her father regarding an alleged attempt by petitioner to bribe her to change her story?

(2) Whether trial counsel/appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on appeal the admission of hearsay evidence.

D. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request an alibi instruction after presenting several witnesses that provided alibi testimony regarding one of only two alleged sexual encounters with Appellant that specified a date, time and location?

E. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to file a bill of particulars requiring the Commonwealth to establish on or around which dates/ months the specific charges attached[?] Failure to request the specific information left too much speculation for the jury to consider evidence which covered an eight month period of time?

F. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to request a jury instruction that the Commonwealth had to prove lack of consent with respect to the charge of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse?

G. Whether trial counsel/appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to question the defense witnesses regarding the lack of veracity or truthfulness of the complainant?

H. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to properly present available evidence to refute the

-3- J-S63028-15

prosecutor’s characterization of the circumstances within [Appellant’s] home at during [sic] the time period of the alleged crimes?

III. Newly discovered evidence

A. Whether a new trial is warranted based on the newly discovered evidence that the complainant had been sexually involved with [Appellant’s] son during the same time period which the Commonwealth alleges petitioner was sexually abusing the complainant?

Appellant’s Brief at 8-10.

We address these issues according to the following standards.

Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to examining whether the court’s rulings are supported by the evidence of record and free of legal error. This Court treats the findings of the PCRA court with deference if the record supports those findings. It is an appellant’s burden to persuade this Court that the PCRA court erred and that relief is due.

Commonwealth v. Feliciano, 69 A.3d 1270, 1274-1275 (Pa. Super. 2013)

(citation omitted).

[Our] scope of review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA court level. The PCRA court’s credibility determinations, when supported by the record, are binding on this Court. However, this Court applies a de novo standard of review to the PCRA court’s legal conclusions.

Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210, 1214-1215 (Pa. Super. 2014)

(en banc) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), appeal granted,

-4- J-S63028-15

105 A.3d 658 (Pa. 2014). Additionally, in order to be eligible for PCRA relief,

a petitioner must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that

his conviction or sentence arose from one or more of the errors listed at 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2). These issues must be neither previously litigated

nor waived. Id. at § 9543(a)(3).

When reviewing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we apply

the following test, first articulated by our Supreme Court in Commonwealth

v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987).

When considering such a claim, courts presume that counsel was effective, and place upon the appellant the burden of proving otherwise. Counsel cannot be found ineffective for failure to assert a baseless claim.

To succeed on a claim that counsel was ineffective, Appellant must demonstrate that: (1) the claim is of arguable merit; (2) counsel had no reasonable strategic basis for his or her action or inaction; and (3) counsel’s ineffectiveness prejudiced him.

[T]o demonstrate prejudice, appellant must show there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.

Commonwealth v. Michaud, 70 A.3d 862, 867 (Pa. Super. 2013) (internal

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Alleyne v. United States
133 S. Ct. 2151 (Supreme Court, 2013)
Commonwealth v. Pierce
527 A.2d 973 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1987)
Commonwealth v. Birdsong
24 A.3d 319 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2011)
Commonwealth v. Medina, J.
105 A.3d 658 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2014)
Commonwealth v. Wolfe
106 A.3d 800 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2014)
Commonwealth v. Riggle
119 A.3d 1058 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015)
Commonwealth v. Feliciano
69 A.3d 1270 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2013)
Commonwealth v. Michaud
70 A.3d 862 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2013)
Commonwealth v. Medina
92 A.3d 1210 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Com. v. Fulmer, K., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-fulmer-k-pasuperct-2015.