J-S24027-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SHAUN MICHAEL HOWARD : : Appellant : No. 182 WDA 2023
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 9, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-42-CR-0000591-2014
BEFORE: BOWES, J., SULLIVAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED: August 13, 2024
Shaun Michael Howard (“Howard”) appeals from the order denying his
petition for relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 1
Additionally, Howard’s counsel (“Counsel”) has filed a petition to withdraw
from representation and a “no-merit” brief pursuant to Commonwealth v.
Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d
213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (collectively, “Turner/Finley”). We affirm
the order denying relief and grant Counsel’s petition to withdraw.
A jury convicted Howard of seven counts each of rape by forcible
compulsion, rape of a child, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse by force,
involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child less than thirteen years of
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. J-S24027-24
age, and incest of a minor – child less than thirteen years of age, and related
offenses for various sexual assaults he inflicted on his then 11-year-old
daughter. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of forty-five to one
hundred and four years. See Commonwealth v. Howard, 168 A.3d 293
(Pa. Super. 2017) (unpublished memorandum).
Howard filed a timely appeal asserting two violations of the
Confrontation Clause of the United States constitution. This Court affirmed
Howard’s judgment of sentence. See id. On October 21, 2021, Howard filed
a pro se PCRA petition asserting, inter alia, exceptions to the statutory time-
bar. See PCRA Petition, 10/21/21, at 2, 4. The PCRA court dismissed the
petition without a hearing. See Order, 1/24/22. On appeal, this Court
remanded for the PCRA court to consider Howard’s right to counsel. The PCRA
court determined Howard had a right to counsel. This Court vacated the denial
of PCRA relief, relinquished jurisdiction, and remanded the case to the PCRA
court. See Order, 6/2/22.
During the pendency of Howard’s appeal to this Court, he filed a second
PCRA petition. The PCRA court ordered appointed counsel to file a pleading
or indicate that no amendment would be filed. Appointed counsel failed to
respond. The Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss Howard’s petition as
untimely. Appointed counsel filed an answer agreeing Howard’s petition was
untimely. See Answer, 12/27/22, at ¶ 21. The PCRA court denied and
-2- J-S24027-24
dismissed the petition, explaining its rejection of Howard’s assertions of time-
bar exceptions. See Opinion and Order, 1/5/23.
Howard appealed. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that Howard’s claims lacked
merit, but failed to file a contemporaneous petition to withdraw, or a copy of
“notice of rights” letter to Howard.2 This Court struck appointed counsel’s
filing and the PCRA court appointed Counsel, who has filed a “no-merit” brief
pursuant to Turner/Finley.
When presented with a Turner/Finley “no merit” brief, this Court may
not review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the
request to withdraw. See Commonwealth v. Knecht, 219 A.3d 689, 691
(Pa. Super. 2019). A Turner/Finley brief must: (1) detail the nature and
extent of counsel’s review of the case; (2) list each issue the appellant wishes
to have reviewed; and (3) explain counsel’s reasoning for concluding that the
appellant’s issues are meritless. See id. Counsel must send a copy of the
brief to the appellant, along with a copy of the petition to withdraw, and inform
the appellant of the right to proceed pro se or to retain new counsel. See id.
If the brief meets these requirements, this Court will conduct an independent
review of the appellant’s issues. See id.
2 Anders applies to direct appeals, not appeals from the denial of PCRA relief.
-3- J-S24027-24
Our review of the petition to withdraw and “no-merit” brief reveals that
Counsel substantially complied with Turner/Finley’s procedural requirements
by detailing his review of the case, listing the issues Howard wished to raise,
and explaining why she believed this appeal to be frivolous. See Knecht, 219
A.3d at 691; see also Turner/Finley Brief at 21-34. Counsel has also
attached to her petition to withdraw a letter to Howard advising him of his
right to proceed pro se or with private counsel. See Application to Withdraw
as Counsel, 2/5/24, Exhibit C. Accordingly, we conclude that Counsel has met
the technical requirements of Turner/Finley, and we will proceed to address
the issues Counsel identified in the Turner/Finley brief.
The claims counsel identifies relate to the PCRA court’s denial of
Howard’s petition. This Court’s standard of review regarding an order denying
a PCRA petition is whether the determination of the PCRA court is supported
by the evidence of record and free of legal error. See Commonwealth v.
Kretchmar, 189 A.3d 459, 462 (Pa. Super. 2018). We grant great deference
to the factual findings of the PCRA court and will not disturb those findings
unless they have no support in the record. We grant no such deference to the
PCRA court’s legal conclusion, over which our standard of review is de novo
and our scope of review is plenary. See Commonwealth v. Dozier, 208
A.3d 1101, 1103 (Pa. Super. 2019).
Counsel identifies Howard’s claim that the victim has asserted his
innocence as a newly discovered fact, 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9545(b)(1)(ii), and
-4- J-S24027-24
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), as a constitutional decision
to be applied retroactively to his case, 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9545(b)(1)(iii). Counsel
also cites Howard’s assertion in his December 28, 2021, Motion for
Reconsideration that he did not learn about the PCRA statute until March 2021.
See Turner/Finley Brief at 22-23.
Counsel correctly explains that Howard’s alleged lack of knowledge of
the PCRA does not excuse his untimely filing. See id. at 24, citing
Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 789 A.2d 728, 731 (Pa. Super. 2001). Counsel
further explains Howard’s government interference assertion on alleged
misconduct in 2014 and 2015 as conduct that Howard was aware of at the
time it occurred, and thus, those officials could not have interfered with
Howard’s filing of his subsequent PCRA petitions. See id. at 25. Regarding
Howard’s claim of newly discovered evidence, see 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§9545(b)(1)(ii), Howard offered no basis to conclude he did not previously
know of it or could not have discovered the information asserted with the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S24027-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SHAUN MICHAEL HOWARD : : Appellant : No. 182 WDA 2023
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 9, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-42-CR-0000591-2014
BEFORE: BOWES, J., SULLIVAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED: August 13, 2024
Shaun Michael Howard (“Howard”) appeals from the order denying his
petition for relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 1
Additionally, Howard’s counsel (“Counsel”) has filed a petition to withdraw
from representation and a “no-merit” brief pursuant to Commonwealth v.
Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d
213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (collectively, “Turner/Finley”). We affirm
the order denying relief and grant Counsel’s petition to withdraw.
A jury convicted Howard of seven counts each of rape by forcible
compulsion, rape of a child, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse by force,
involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child less than thirteen years of
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. J-S24027-24
age, and incest of a minor – child less than thirteen years of age, and related
offenses for various sexual assaults he inflicted on his then 11-year-old
daughter. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of forty-five to one
hundred and four years. See Commonwealth v. Howard, 168 A.3d 293
(Pa. Super. 2017) (unpublished memorandum).
Howard filed a timely appeal asserting two violations of the
Confrontation Clause of the United States constitution. This Court affirmed
Howard’s judgment of sentence. See id. On October 21, 2021, Howard filed
a pro se PCRA petition asserting, inter alia, exceptions to the statutory time-
bar. See PCRA Petition, 10/21/21, at 2, 4. The PCRA court dismissed the
petition without a hearing. See Order, 1/24/22. On appeal, this Court
remanded for the PCRA court to consider Howard’s right to counsel. The PCRA
court determined Howard had a right to counsel. This Court vacated the denial
of PCRA relief, relinquished jurisdiction, and remanded the case to the PCRA
court. See Order, 6/2/22.
During the pendency of Howard’s appeal to this Court, he filed a second
PCRA petition. The PCRA court ordered appointed counsel to file a pleading
or indicate that no amendment would be filed. Appointed counsel failed to
respond. The Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss Howard’s petition as
untimely. Appointed counsel filed an answer agreeing Howard’s petition was
untimely. See Answer, 12/27/22, at ¶ 21. The PCRA court denied and
-2- J-S24027-24
dismissed the petition, explaining its rejection of Howard’s assertions of time-
bar exceptions. See Opinion and Order, 1/5/23.
Howard appealed. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that Howard’s claims lacked
merit, but failed to file a contemporaneous petition to withdraw, or a copy of
“notice of rights” letter to Howard.2 This Court struck appointed counsel’s
filing and the PCRA court appointed Counsel, who has filed a “no-merit” brief
pursuant to Turner/Finley.
When presented with a Turner/Finley “no merit” brief, this Court may
not review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the
request to withdraw. See Commonwealth v. Knecht, 219 A.3d 689, 691
(Pa. Super. 2019). A Turner/Finley brief must: (1) detail the nature and
extent of counsel’s review of the case; (2) list each issue the appellant wishes
to have reviewed; and (3) explain counsel’s reasoning for concluding that the
appellant’s issues are meritless. See id. Counsel must send a copy of the
brief to the appellant, along with a copy of the petition to withdraw, and inform
the appellant of the right to proceed pro se or to retain new counsel. See id.
If the brief meets these requirements, this Court will conduct an independent
review of the appellant’s issues. See id.
2 Anders applies to direct appeals, not appeals from the denial of PCRA relief.
-3- J-S24027-24
Our review of the petition to withdraw and “no-merit” brief reveals that
Counsel substantially complied with Turner/Finley’s procedural requirements
by detailing his review of the case, listing the issues Howard wished to raise,
and explaining why she believed this appeal to be frivolous. See Knecht, 219
A.3d at 691; see also Turner/Finley Brief at 21-34. Counsel has also
attached to her petition to withdraw a letter to Howard advising him of his
right to proceed pro se or with private counsel. See Application to Withdraw
as Counsel, 2/5/24, Exhibit C. Accordingly, we conclude that Counsel has met
the technical requirements of Turner/Finley, and we will proceed to address
the issues Counsel identified in the Turner/Finley brief.
The claims counsel identifies relate to the PCRA court’s denial of
Howard’s petition. This Court’s standard of review regarding an order denying
a PCRA petition is whether the determination of the PCRA court is supported
by the evidence of record and free of legal error. See Commonwealth v.
Kretchmar, 189 A.3d 459, 462 (Pa. Super. 2018). We grant great deference
to the factual findings of the PCRA court and will not disturb those findings
unless they have no support in the record. We grant no such deference to the
PCRA court’s legal conclusion, over which our standard of review is de novo
and our scope of review is plenary. See Commonwealth v. Dozier, 208
A.3d 1101, 1103 (Pa. Super. 2019).
Counsel identifies Howard’s claim that the victim has asserted his
innocence as a newly discovered fact, 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9545(b)(1)(ii), and
-4- J-S24027-24
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), as a constitutional decision
to be applied retroactively to his case, 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9545(b)(1)(iii). Counsel
also cites Howard’s assertion in his December 28, 2021, Motion for
Reconsideration that he did not learn about the PCRA statute until March 2021.
See Turner/Finley Brief at 22-23.
Counsel correctly explains that Howard’s alleged lack of knowledge of
the PCRA does not excuse his untimely filing. See id. at 24, citing
Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 789 A.2d 728, 731 (Pa. Super. 2001). Counsel
further explains Howard’s government interference assertion on alleged
misconduct in 2014 and 2015 as conduct that Howard was aware of at the
time it occurred, and thus, those officials could not have interfered with
Howard’s filing of his subsequent PCRA petitions. See id. at 25. Regarding
Howard’s claim of newly discovered evidence, see 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§9545(b)(1)(ii), Howard offered no basis to conclude he did not previously
know of it or could not have discovered the information asserted with the
exercise of due diligence. See Turner/Finley Brief at 26-27. Howard’s claim
that witnesses could have testified to his drunkenness at the time of his arrest
fails for the same reasons. See id. at 27-28.3 With regard to his sister,
Melissa Butler’s, proposed evidence that the victim told her that Howard was
not guilty, counsel notes Howard identifies statements made in 2014 and
3 Additionally, although counsel fails to mention it, it is unclear why Howard’s
intoxication when arrested, even if true, would have any exculpatory force.
-5- J-S24027-24
2015. Thus, these alleged statements were made in advance of Butler’s trial
testimony; furthermore, Howard failed to state when he became aware of the
victim’s alleged statement, and Howard failed to show he could not have
discovered the evidence earlier with the exercise of due diligence, pursuant to
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). See id. at 28-31. Howard’s final newly discovered
evidence assertion, that his mother believed there were errors in his case,
aside from the fact it is not newly discovered evidence, was not timely
asserted. See id. at 31-32.
As to Howard’s assertion that Crawford meets the criterion of a new
Constitutional decision retroactively applied, see 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§9545(b)(1)(iii), the United States Supreme Court decided that case in 2004,
and Howard was arrested in 2014, and convicted in 2015. Thus, Crawford
cannot constitute the basis of a constitutional right “recognized by the
Supreme Court of the United States . . . after the time period provided in this
section and . . . held by that court to apply retroactively.” 42 Pa.C.S.A.
9545(b)(1)(iii). See Turner/Finley Brief at 32-33. Counsel’s brief closely
tracks the PCRA court’s reasoning in its order Opinion. See Opinion, 1/5/23,
at 2-6.
Having independently reviewed the record and the PCRA court’s findings
of fact and conclusions of law, we conclude that the record supports the PCRA
court’s findings and that its conclusions are legally sound. For these reasons,
we agree with Counsel’s assessment that there are no meritorious issues in
-6- J-S24027-24
this appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Howard’s PCRA petition
and grant Counsel’s petition to withdraw.
Order affirmed. Petition to withdraw granted.
DATE: 8/13/2024
-7-