Com. v. Watson, D.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: March 25, 2025
• Docket: 1124 MDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S01011-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : DAMIAN LAMONT WATSON : : Appellant : No. 1124 MDA 2024

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 12, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0000741-2023

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

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED MARCH 25, 2025

Appellant Damian Lamont Watson appeals from the order denying his

timely first Post Conviction Relief Act1 (PCRA) petition. On appeal, Appellant

contends that his underlying conviction of persons not to possess firearms was

unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the United States

Constitution. We affirm.

On October 20, 2023, Appellant entered a guilty plea to one count of

persons not to possess firearms.2 The record reflects that Appellant was

prohibited from possessing firearms as the result of a previous conviction of

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1). J-S01011-25

possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.3 N.T. Guilty Plea

Hr’g, 10/20/23, at 5-6; see also 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1); (c)(2) (stating that

a person convicted of an offense violating the Controlled Substance, Drug,

Device and Cosmetic Act that may be punishable by a term of imprisonment

exceeding two years is prohibited from possessing a firearm). That same day,

the trial court sentenced Appellant to six to twelve years’ incarceration.

Appellant did not file a direct appeal.

Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition on April 15, 2024. The

PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition on Appellant’s

behalf. The PCRA court entered a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of intent to dismiss

Appellant’s PCRA petition without a hearing on June 21, 2024. On July 12,

2024, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s PCRA petition.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and both Appellant and the PCRA

court complied with the mandates of Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

Did the [PCRA] court err in finding that [Appellant’s] conviction for 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1) was not in violation of the U.S. Constitution as it applied to [Appellant] when the Commonwealth did not show that 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1) was part of the historical tradition that limits the Second Amendment and none of [Appellant’s] disqualifying convictions were crimes of violence?

Appellant’s Brief at 3 (some formatting altered).

3 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).

-2- J-S01011-25

Our standard of review from the denial of a PCRA petition “is limited to

examining whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported by the

evidence of record and whether it is free of legal error.” Commonwealth v.

Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1043 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). This

Court applies a de novo standard of review to the PCRA court’s legal

conclusions. Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 25 A.3d 277, 284 (Pa. 2011).

A PCRA court’s credibility determinations, however, are binding on this Court

when such determinations are supported by the record. Id.; see also

Commonwealth v. Davis, 262 A.3d 589, 595 (Pa. Super. 2021) (stating that

“[t]his Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if the

record contains any support for those findings” (citation omitted)).

To be eligible for PCRA relief, a petitioner must demonstrate that the

issues raised in his PCRA petition have not been previously litigated or waived.

See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(3). Section 9544 of the PCRA states that “an issue

is 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 postconviction

proceeding.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b). We have reiterated that “[a]n issue is

waived if it could have been raised prior to the filing of the PCRA petition, but

was not.” Commonwealth v. Turetsky, 925 A.2d 876, 879 (Pa. Super.

2007) (citation omitted).

Here, Appellant raises an as-applied constitutional challenge to his

conviction based on decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States,

the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the United States

-3- J-S01011-25

District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See Appellant’s Brief at

7-11. Specifically, Appellant cites to the Supreme Court’s decision in New

York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022),

the Third Circuit’s decision in Range v. Attorney General, 69 F.4th 96 (3d

Cir. 2023) (en banc), and the Middle District’s decision in United States v.

Quailes, 688 F.Supp.3d 184 (M.D. Pa. 2023), rev’d, 126 F.4th 215 (3d Cir.

2025).4

4 We note that the Supreme Court vacated the Third Circuit’s decision in Range and remanded the case to the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). See Garland v. Range, --- U.S. ---, 144 S.Ct. 2706 (2024). Rahimi addressed the constitutionality of a federal statute addressing possession of firearms by a person subject to a court order that “restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child[.]” See Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 684-86; 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(B). Rahimi further sets forth that

the appropriate analysis involves considering whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition. A court must ascertain whether the new law is “relevantly similar” to laws that our tradition is understood to permit, “apply[ing] faithfully the balance struck by the founding generation to modern circumstances.”

Id. at 681 (citing Bruen, 597 U.S. at 26-31); see also Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 328 A.3d 1076, 1087-88 (Pa. Super. 2024).

Additionally, the Third Circuit reversed the Middle District’s holding in Quailes and remanded for further proceedings. See United States v. Quailes, 126 F.4th 215, 224 (3d Cir. 2025) (holding that federal statute prohibiting “felons who are completing their criminal sentences[,]” including probation or parole, “fits neatly within the principles underlying the Second Amendment” (citation omitted and some formatting altered)).

-4- J-S01011-25

However, our review confirms that the Supreme Court announced its

decision in Bruen on June 23, 2022, the Third Circuit announced its decision

in Range on June 6, 2023, and the Middle District announced its decision in

Quailes on August 22, 2023. Although Appellant could have raised this issue

on direct appeal after his judgment of sentence was entered on October 20,

2023, he failed to do so. Therefore, Appellant’s issue is waived under Section

9544(b) of the PCRA. See Turetsky, 925 A.2d at 879; see also

Commonwealth v. Lambert, 797 A.2d 232, 240 (Pa. 2001) (plurality)

(finding that the petitioner waived a PCRA claim that he could have raised on

direct appeal (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b))). For these reasons, Appellant is

not entitled to relief.

Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 03/25/2025

-5-