Com. v. Teague, M.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: December 16, 2022
• Docket: 2318 EDA 2021
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S37044-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MARCUS TEAGUE : : Appellant : No. 2318 EDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 8, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003291-2014

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MARCUS TEAGUE : : Appellant : No. 2319 EDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 8, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002400-2014

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MARCUS TEAGUE : : Appellant : No. 2320 EDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 8, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002401-2014 J-S37044-22

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MARCUS TEAGUE : : Appellant : No. 2321 EDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 8, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002405-2014

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MARCUS TEAGUE : : Appellant : No. 2322 EDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 8, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002406-2014

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MARCUS TEAGUE : : Appellant : No. 2323 EDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 8, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002408-2014

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. :

-2- J-S37044-22

: : MARCUS TEAGUE : : Appellant : No. 2324 EDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 8, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002410-2014

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MARCUS TEAGUE : : Appellant : No. 2325 EDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 8, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002411-2014

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MARCUS TEAGUE : : Appellant : No. 209 EDA 2022

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 3, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002409-2014

BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and OLSON, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED DECEMBER 16, 2022

-3- J-S37044-22

Appellant, Marcus Teague, appeals from the order entered on January

3, 2022, dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act

(PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

The PCRA court set forth the facts and procedural history of this case as

follows:

Between October and November 2013, Appellant [] committed a series of robberies in Philadelphia. He held several of his victims at gunpoint, and knocked one victim to the ground, causing that victim to hit his head. All victims positively identified [] Appellant.

As a result of these incidents, Appellant was arrested and charged with [10] counts of robbery and related offenses. On December 2, 2014, Appellant entered into a negotiated plea before [the trial] court to [10] counts of robbery, five counts of [persons not to possess a firearm], five counts of carrying a firearm without a license, and six counts of possession of an instrument of crime. On February 18, 2015[, the trial court] sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of [20] to [40] years of [imprisonment], followed by seven years of probation.

Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence, which [the trial] court denied. No direct appeal followed, and on February 12, 2016, Appellant filed a petition pursuant to the [PCRA] in which he sought to have his appellate rights reinstated nunc pro tunc. [The trial] court granted Appellant’s petition on September 18, 2017, and Appellant then filed a notice of appeal to the Superior Court. The Superior Court affirmed [the trial] court’s sentence on February 19, 2019. Appellant then filed a petition for allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition on July 30, 2019. On October 26, 2020, Appellant, through counsel, filed the instant PCRA petition for all docket[ numbers as captioned above, except one.] On June 8, 2021, Appellant filed an identical [PCRA] petition [at the remaining docket number]. [The PCRA] court denied Appellant’s October 2020 petition on November 8, 2021, and denied his June 2021 petition on January 3, 2022. Appellant filed timely notices of appeal to the Superior

-4- J-S37044-22

Court on November 12, 2021 and January 6, 2022.[1 The PCRA] court issued orders pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) requiring Appellant to file a concise statement of [errors] complained of on appeal. Appellant filed timely concise statements on December 19, 2021 and February 14, 2022. [The PCRA court filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on February 2, 2022.]

PCRA Court Opinion, 2/22/22, at 1-2 (superfluous capitalization omitted).

On appeal, Appellant presents the following issues for our review:

1. Did the [PCRA] court err and abuse its discretion by dismissing Appellant’s petition and denying an evidentiary hearing as Appellant was promised by previous counsel to be sentenced concurrently rather than consecutively?

2. Did the [PCRA] court err and abuse its discretion by dismissing Appellant’s petition and denying an evidentiary hearing as Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel as there was a failure to provide the [trial] court with mitigation at sentencing?

3. Did the [PCRA] court err and abuse its discretion by dismissing Appellant’s petition and denying an evidentiary hearing [because] Appellant claims that eit[h]er the trial court was not in possession of the [presentence investigation]/mental health report or[,] in the alternative, [Appellant’s] previous attorneys were ineffective for failing to reference it?

Appellant’s Brief at 8 (complete capitalization and suggested answers

omitted).

____________________________________________

1 We note that Appellant filed multiple notices of appeal, one for each docket number. Each notice of appeal lists all eight of the captioned docket numbers but denote each individual notice of appeal with a check mark next to each separate docket number. As such, Appellant has complied with our Supreme Court’s pronouncements in Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) and this Court’s en banc decision in Commonwealth v. Johnson, 236 A.3d 1141 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc). By per curiam order entered on February 22, 2022, we consolidated the appeals sua sponte.

-5- J-S37044-22

All of Appellant’s appellate PCRA issues implicate the effectiveness of

trial counsel. We employ the following standards:

We must determine whether the findings of the PCRA court are supported by the record and whether the court's legal conclusions are free from error. The findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record are viewed in a light most favorable to the prevailing party.

The PCRA court's credibility determinations, when supported by the record, are binding; however, this [C]ourt applies a de novo standard of review to the PCRA court's legal conclusions. We must keep in mind that the petitioner has the burden of persuading this Court that the PCRA court erred and that such error requires relief. Finally, this Court may affirm a valid judgment or order for any reason appearing of record.

Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 205 A.3d 274, 286 (Pa. 2019) (citations

Moreover,

[c]ounsel is presumed to be effective, and the petitioner bears the burden of proving that counsel's assistance was ineffective by a preponderance of the evidence.

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner must plead and prove the following three elements: (1) the underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) counsel had no reasonable basis for his or her action or inaction; and (3) petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel's action or inaction. To establish prejudice, the petitioner must show that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different but for counsel's action or inaction. Because a petitioner's failure to satisfy any of the above- mentioned elements is dispositive of the entire claim, a court need not analyze the elements in any particular order. Failure to satisfy one element is dipositive.

Commonwealth v. Hairston, 249 A.3d 1046, 1061–1062 (Pa. 2021)

(internal citations omitted).

-6- J-S37044-22

We have further explained:

A claim has arguable merit where the factual averments, if accurate, could establish [grounds] for relief. See Commonwealth v. Jones, 876 A.2d 380, 385 (Pa. 2005) (“if a petitioner raises allegations, which, even if accepted as true, do not establish the underlying claim ..., he or she will have failed to establish the arguable merit prong related to the claim”). Whether the facts rise to the level of arguable merit is a legal determination.

Commonwealth v. Stewart, 84 A.3d 701, 707 (Pa. Super. 2013).

Here, the PCRA court determined that there was no merit to Appellant’s

three PCRA claims. For the reasons that follow, we agree. First, the PCRA

court rejected Appellant’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for

erroneously advising him that he would receive a specific sentence for

pleading guilty. PCRA Court Opinion, 2/22/22, at 6. Appellant signed a

written guilty plea colloquy, which he confirmed orally in open court, that he

was entering into an open plea agreement rather than a negotiated sentence.

See Commonwealth v. Vega, 850 A.2d 1277, 1280 (Pa. Super. 2004) (An

“open” plea agreement is one in which there is no negotiated sentence and

gives the trial court discretion to impose an individualized sentence.) Next,

on December 2, 2014, the trial court accepted Appellant’s open plea, ordered

the preparation of pre-sentence investigation (PSI) and mental health reports,

and scheduled sentencing for February 18, 2015. N.T., 12/2/2014, at 8. At

the beginning of the sentencing hearing, the trial court reiterated that it had

already accepted Appellant’s open guilty plea. N.T., 2/18/2015, at 4-5. The

trial court received letters from Appellant’s brother and sister. Id. at 13-14.

-7- J-S37044-22

One of the victims gave impact testimony at sentencing. Id. at 15-21.

Appellant exercised his right to allocution. Id. at 22-33. Before sentencing

Appellant, the trial court stated that it considered the sentencing guidelines,

PSI report, mental health evaluation, terms of the plea, victim impact

testimony, nature of the crimes and use of weapons, Appellant’s 25-year

criminal history, written letters from family and parental relationships, and

Appellant’s statements to the court. Id. at 34-35; see also Commonwealth

v. Watson, 228 A.3d 928, 936 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted) (Where

PSI and/or mental health reports exist, we presume that the sentencing judge

was aware of relevant information regarding the defendant's character and

weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors).

Accordingly, the PCRA court determined that there was no merit to Appellant’s

claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present mitigating

evidence or failing to object to the absence of a PSI report or mental health

evaluation. PCRA Court Opinion, 2/22/22, at 5-6. Based upon review of the

certified record, the parties’ appellate briefs, the PCRA court’s opinion, and

applicable law, we conclude that the PCRA court thoroughly and accurately

addressed all of the issues raised by Appellant and we discern no abuse of

discretion or error of law in ruling on his claims. Consequently, we affirm on

the basis of the PCRA court opinion issued on February 22, 2022 and adopt it

as our own. The parties are instructed to attach a copy of the PCRA court

opinion to all future filings regarding this appeal.

Order affirmed.

-8- J-S37044-22

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 12/16/2022

-9- Circulated 12/06/2022 01:39 PM

0036_Opinion