Com. v. Rouse, M.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: May 12, 2023
• Docket: 1392 EDA 2022
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S13020-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : : MARTIN ROUSE : : Appellant : : No. 1392 EDA 2022

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 12, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0012569-2015

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : : MARTIN ROUSE : : Appellant : : No. 1393 EDA 2022

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 12, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0012570-2015

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : : MARTIN ROUSE : : Appellant : : No. 1394 EDA 2022

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 12, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0012571-2015 J-S13020-23

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : : MARTIN ROUSE : : Appellant : No. 1395 EDA 2022

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 12, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0012572-2015

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : : MARTIN ROUSE : : Appellant : : No. 1396 EDA 2022

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 12, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0012573-2015

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED MAY 12, 2023

Martin Rouse (Appellant) appeals from the order dismissing his petition

filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. We

affirm.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

-2- J-S13020-23

CASE HISTORY

Between November 2009 and March 2013, Appellant and two co-

conspirators, Curtis Smith (Smith) and Dennis Holloman (Holloman),

committed a series of armed robberies and burglaries in Philadelphia.

On May 23, 2014, Philadelphia police arrested Appellant and charged him with numerous offenses at docket numbers CP-51- CR-0012569-2015 (Docket 12569), CP-51-CR-0012570-2015 (Docket 12570), CP-51-CR-0012571-2015 (Docket 12571), CP- 51-CR-0012572-2015 (Docket 12572), and CP-51-CR-0012573- 2015 (Docket 12573). On December 11, 2017, the trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion to consolidate Appellant’s cases.

The charges against Appellant and Holloman proceeded to a week and a half-long joint jury trial commencing March 5, 2018. Smith testified as a Commonwealth witness, but denied remembering anything about the statement he gave police or his guilty pleas. Holloman testified in his defense, disavowing the statements he gave to police because, he maintained, the statements were made under duress and the police detectives’ coercion. Appellant did not testify, but presented one exhibit. On March 14, 2018, the jury found Appellant guilty of numerous offenses.

Commonwealth v. Rouse, 237 A.3d 493 (Pa. Super. May 28, 2020)

(unpublished memorandum at *1) (footnotes omitted).

The jury convicted Appellant of three counts of theft by unlawful taking

(Dockets 12570, 12572, 12573); two counts of robbery (Dockets 12569,

12571), conspiracy to commit robbery (Dockets 12572, 12573), receiving

stolen property (Dockets 12569, 12571), and conspiracy to commit receiving

stolen property (Dockets 12569, 12571); and one count of burglary (Docket

12570), conspiracy to commit burglary (Docket 12570), and firearms not to

be carried without a license (Docket 12573).

-3- J-S13020-23

Appellant timely appealed, and this Court affirmed his convictions.

However, we remanded for resentencing because the probationary sentences

for theft by unlawful taking should have merged with the robbery sentences.

Id. at 6-7.

On February 22, 2021, the trial court resentenced Appellant to an

aggregate 8 — 16 years of incarceration. Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition

on March 1, 2021. Counsel entered his appearance for Appellant and filed an

amended petition on October 13, 2021. The Commonwealth filed a motion to

dismiss the petition without a hearing. The PCRA court, after “reviewing the

petitions, the Commonwealth’s motion, and all relevant matters of record …

determined that Appellant’s claims were meritless, did not raise any issue of

material fact, and did not warrant an evidentiary hearing.” PCRA Court

Opinion, 8/1/22, at 5. On April 7, 2022, the PCRA court issued notice of intent

to dismiss the petition pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. The PCRA court

dismissed the petition on May 12, 2022. Appellant timely filed notices of

appeal at each docket. This Court consolidated the cases sua sponte.

ISSUES

Appellant timely filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. He

presents the following issues for review:

I. Whether the Court erred in denying the Appellant’s PCRA petition without an evidentiary hearing on the issues raised in the Amended PCRA petition?

II. Whether Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to reconsider sentence?

-4- J-S13020-23

III. Whether Appellant is entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence?

IV. Whether Appellant’s conviction should be reversed due to a change in the law regarding hearsay being admitted at the preliminary hearing?

V. Whether Appellant’s conviction should be reversed due to a change in the law regarding Appellant's Rule 600 motion?

Appellant’s Brief at 8.

In his first issue, Appellant argues the PCRA court erroneously dismissed

his petition without conducting a hearing. Appellant’s Brief at 17-19.

Appellant claims he was entitled to a hearing to prove facts which “most

certainly, if proven true, would entitle the Appellant to relief.” Id. at 17.

Notably, Appellant does not identify the facts or develop this claim beyond his

conclusory statement. See id. at 17-19.

In his second issue, Appellant argues his trial counsel “was ineffective

for failing to [file] a post sentencing motion to reconsider sentence.” Id. at

20. Appellant claims the error caused the Superior Court to find waiver, and

“deprived Appellant of arguing the harsh sentence he received.” Id. at 17.

In his third issue, Appellant argues he is entitled to relief due to

“evidence regarding misconduct of police officers ….” Id. Appellant states

that his current counsel “received a Notice from the District Attorney’s Office

disclosing that two police officers who were originally involved in Appellant’s

investigation had been identified as officers who may have engaged in

misconduct.” Id. at 22 (emphasis added). Appellant contends: “Multiple

-5- J-S13020-23

police officers and detectives gave testimony inconsistent with prior records

and other witness’ testimony. Therefore, the fact that there were officers

involved in Appellant’s investigation who have officially been punished for

making false statements, disclosing classified information, and threatening

violence on people of color, is crucial information to Appellant's defense.” Id.

at 23.

In his fourth and fifth issues, Appellant asserts he is entitled to relief

because of changes in the law regarding 1) hearsay evidence admitted at

preliminary hearings; and 2) Rule 600 motions. Appellant does not address

retroactivity. Regarding hearsay, Appellant cites Commonwealth v.

McClelland, 233 A.3d 717 (Pa. 2020) (holding hearsay evidence alone is not

sufficient to establish a prima facie case at a preliminary hearing). However,

Appellant fails to expand on his claim that McClelland “conflicts with the

assessment made by the court at the Preliminary Hearing” in 2015. Id. at

25. As to Rule 600, Appellant relies on Commonwealth v. Harth, 252 A.3d

600 (Pa. 2021) (holding trial court may invoke “judicial delay” to deny a

defendant’s Rule 600 motion only after the Commonwealth has demonstrated

it complied with due diligence requirements throughout the case). Although

Appellant recites case law, id. at 25-27, his argument is based on his general

assertion that “the Commonwealth did not exercise due diligence.” Id. at 28.

In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Commonwealth counters that

the PCRA court properly dismissed Appellant’s petition given the “various

-6- J-S13020-23

undeveloped allegations regarding ineffective assistance of trial counsel, after-

discovered evidence, speedy trial, and hearsay at the preliminary hearing.”

Commonwealth Brief at 5 (stating Appellant’s “claims are meritless for the

reasons explained in the PCRA court’s opinion.”).

APPELLATE REVIEW

We review the denial of PCRA relief “to determine whether the ruling of

the PCRA court is supported by the record and free of legal error.”

Commonwealth v. Wharton, 263 A.3d 561, 567 (Pa. 2021) (citation

omitted). We have explained:

There is no absolute right to an evidentiary hearing on a PCRA petition, and if the PCRA court can determine from the record that no genuine issues of material fact exist, then a hearing is not necessary. To obtain reversal of a PCRA court’s decision to dismiss a petition without a hearing, an appellant must show that he raised a genuine issue of fact which, if resolved in his favor, would have entitled him to relief, or that that court otherwise abused its discretion in denying a hearing.

Commonwealth v. Maddrey, 205 A.3d 323, 328 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citations

and quotation marks omitted).

Furthermore, to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth- determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place. The burden is on the defendant to prove all three of the following prongs: (1) the underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) that counsel had no reasonable strategic basis for his or her action or inaction; and (3) but for the errors and omissions of counsel, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.

***

-7- J-S13020-23

Boilerplate allegations and bald assertions of no reasonable basis and/or ensuing prejudice cannot satisfy a petitioner’s burden to prove that counsel was ineffective.

Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1043-44 (Pa. Super. 2019)

(citations omitted). It is well-settled that counsel cannot be deemed

ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim. Commonwealth v.

Poplawski, 852 A.2d 323, 327 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted).

Instantly, the record and law support the PCRA court’s dismissal of

Appellant’s petition.

PCRA COURT OPINION

Like the Commonwealth, we conclude the PCRA court “aptly explains in

its thorough opinion” why Appellant’s issues do not merit relief.

Commonwealth Brief at 5. The Honorable Timika R. Lane, who sat as both

the trial court and PCRA court in this case, observed that “the facts of this

case are troubling.” PCRA Court Opinion, 8/1/22, at 9. Judge Lane capably

addressed Appellant’s issues before concluding that the record and law reveal

“no harmful, prejudicial, or reversible errors[.]” Id. at 17. Having also

reviewed the record and law, we likewise conclude that the PCRA court opinion

properly disposes of Appellant’s issues. Therefore, we adopt the PCRA court’s

August 1, 2022 opinion in affirming the denial of post-conviction relief.

Order affirmed.

-8- J-S13020-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 5/12/2023

-9- Circulated 05/01/2023 01:43 PM

0060_Opinion