Com. v. Woodell, R.

Opinion

J-S26037-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : RANCOURT WOODELL : : Appellant : No. 1009 MDA 2020

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 22, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0002635-2001

BEFORE: STABILE, J., MURRAY, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED: NOVEMBER 5, 2021

Rancourt Woodell (“Woodell”) appeals, pro se, from the Order

dismissing his second Petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction

Relief Act (“PCRA”). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9545. We affirm.

On July 10, 2001, Woodell, his cousin, Carmine Costanzo (“Costanzo”),

and several friends celebrated Woodell’s twenty-first birthday at the

apartment that Woodell shared with Costanzo. Woodell and Costanzo argued

throughout the evening. At some time after 2:00 a.m., Woodell was seen

entering Costanzo’s bedroom with a handgun. Thereafter, several witnesses

heard a “pop,” and saw Woodell re-emerge from Costanzo’s bedroom. Several

hours later, 911 was called, and upon arrival, police discovered the body of

Costanzo, who had been shot. Woodell, who was observed covered in blood,

claimed that he had witnessed Costanzo commit suicide. However, after an J-S26037-21

autopsy indicated that Costanzo had been shot in the back, Woodell was

charged with criminal homicide.

On June 4, 2002, following a jury trial, Woodell was convicted of first-

degree murder,1 and was sentenced to life in prison. This Court affirmed

Woodell’s judgment of sentence, and our Supreme Court denied allowance of

appeal. See Commonwealth v. Woodell, 858 A.2d 1285 (Pa. Super. 2004)

(unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 876 A.2d 395 (Pa. 2005). The

United States Supreme Court denied Woodell’s Petition for writ of certiorari on

May 1, 2006. See Woodell v. Link, 547 U.S. 1115 (2006).

Woodell filed his first PCRA Petition in November 2006, which was denied

in May 2010. This Court subsequently affirmed the denial of Woodell’s first

PCRA Petition, after which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance

of appeal. See Commonwealth v. Woodell, 32 A.3d 838 (Pa. Super. 2011)

(unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 48 A.3d 1249 (Pa. 2012).2

Woodell, pro se, filed the instant PCRA Petition, his second, on August

15, 2019. On January 14, 2020, the PCRA court filed a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501(a).

2 Woodell’s PCRA Petition indicates that he also sought relief from the United

States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, via a habeas corpus Petition, which was dismissed in June 2017. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied Woodell’s Application for a certificate of appealability, and the United States Supreme Court denied his Petition for writ of certiorari in May 2018. In April 2019, Woodell filed a Motion to vacate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2), which was denied on July 22, 2019.

-2- J-S26037-21

Notice of its intention to dismiss Woodell’s Petition as untimely filed.3 On June

22, 2020, the PCRA court entered an Order dismissing Woodell’s PCRA

Petition.

Woodell filed a timely Notice of Appeal.4 However, Woodell did not file

a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of matters complained

of on appeal. Accordingly, the PCRA court filed an Opinion pursuant to

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) recommending that Woodell’s issues be deemed waived and

his appeal dismissed. On November 20, 2020, this Court issued an Order

concluding that the docket failed to indicate whether Woodell had been

properly served with the PCRA court’s Order directing him to file a concise

statement, and permitting Woodell to file a concise statement nunc pro tunc.

See Order, 11/20/20, at 1. Woodell timely complied, and the PCRA court filed

a supplemental Opinion.

Woodell raises the following issues for our review:

3 The certified record does not contain a response filed by Woodell to the PCRA

court’s Rule 907 Notice. However, according to the PCRA court, Woodell sent a reply to the Notice directly to the PCRA court, but did not file such with the clerk of courts.

4 Woodell’s Notice of Appeal was filed on July 27, 2020. Accompanying Woodell’s Notice of Appeal was an approved cash slip from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, indicating that Woodell had mailed the Notice of Appeal on July 10, 2020, within the 30-day appeal period. See Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423 (Pa. 1997) (discussing the “prisoner mailbox” rule). Accordingly, Woodell’s Notice of Appeal is deemed timely filed.

-3- J-S26037-21

1. Whether [the PCRA court] erred [in] denying a hearing on [Woodell’s] new[ly] [d]iscover[ed] epilepsy and brain surgery[, and whether Woodell’s] mental capacity establish[ed] culpability?

2. Does expert testimony of [Woodell’s] diagnosed [] Right Temporal Lobe Complex Seizures mitigate [Woodell’s] culpability on [his] mental capacity [regarding his] conviction for premeditat[ed] first[-]degree murder?

3. [Whether there was a] Due Process Clause violation, [and whether Woodell was] denied a fair trial, [where] [Woodell’s trial counsel] knew [Woodell]’s mental capacity with uncontrol[led] seizures, use of anti[-]convulsion and psychiatric medications, place[ment] in mental health precautions [and] a threat to himself and others [sic] a question by expert testimony?

4. [Given the u]se of Miranda[,5 and the] traditional Reed [sic] technique[6] a function of [d]etectives investigating a crime[, was the g]eneral on scene questioning as to fact finding [unlawful,] as [Woodell] suffer[ed] physical and mental health complications?

5. [Whether, under] Pennsylvania Supreme Court Constitution Article V[] 10 (c)[,] ad[]dopted April 23, 1968[,] … known as the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence; [was there] favorable evidence [that the] Commonwealth Attorney [should have] order[ed] a CT Scan[]?

6. [Should evidence of Woodell’s] continue[d] Neurology treatment[,] a[n] unusual circumstance after brain surgery, [and

5 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

6 The “Reid Technique” of interrogation “calls for police to be patient and understanding, break down the suspect’s resistance to confessing by expressing confidence in the defendant’s guilt, and providing the suspect with explanations for the crime that place the blame on others or rationalize the criminal behavior.” Psychological coercion, Law of Confessions § 2:9 (2d ed.) (footnotes omitted); see also Matthew Clarke, Controversial Police Interrogation Technique That Often Results in False Confessions Abandoned by Influential Training Consultant, Criminal Legal News, May 2018, at 24, https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/apr/19/controversial-police- interrogation-technique-often-results-false-confessions-abandoned- influential-training-consultant/ (last visited Oct. 22, 2021).

-4- J-S26037-21

his] chance[s] of being siezure [sic] free [being] very low be grant[ed through] expert testimony?

Brief for Appellant at 5 (footnotes added).

We review an order [dismissing] a petition under the PCRA in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level. This review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record. We will not disturb a PCRA court’s ruling if it is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal error. This Court may affirm a PCRA court’s decision on any grounds if the record supports it. 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. However, we afford no such deference to its legal conclusions. Further, where the petitioner raises questions of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.

Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations

omitted).

Before reaching the merits of the arguments raised in Woodell’s brief,

however, we must first determine whether the PCRA court correctly concluded

that his PCRA Petition was untimely filed. Under the PCRA, any PCRA petition

“including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of

the date the judgment becomes final.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1) (emphasis

added). A judgment of sentence becomes final “at the conclusion of direct

review, including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the United

States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time

for seeking the review.” Id. § 9545(b)(3). The PCRA’s timeliness

requirements are jurisdictional in nature, and a court may not address the

-5- J-S26037-21

merits of the issues raised if the PCRA petition was not timely filed.

Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 2010).

In this case, Woodell’s judgment of sentence became final in May 2006,

when the United States Supreme Court denied Woodell’s Petition for writ of

certiorari. Accordingly, Woodell’s instant PCRA Petition, filed August 15, 2019,

is facially untimely.

In all of his claims, Woodell asserts that he is entitled to the “newly-

discovered facts” exception set forth at Section 9545(b)(1)(ii). See 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii) (stating that “[a]ny petition under this subchapter

… shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final, unless

the petition alleges and the petitioner proves that … the facts upon which the

claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been

ascertained by the exercise of due diligence….”); see also Commonwealth

v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1272 (Pa. 2007) (stating that “[i]f the petitioner

alleges and proves these two components, then the PCRA court has

jurisdiction over the claim under this subsection.”).

Specifically, Woodell asserts that he was diagnosed with a seizure

disorder in August 2015, and claims that he has suffered from behavioral,

mental, and physical impairments related to the seizure disorder since he was

fifteen years old. See PCRA Petition, 8/15/19, at 3. Woodell points to a

seizure he suffered when preparing for trial, and indicates that his seizure

disorder impaired his ability to respond to police questioning after the

-6- J-S26037-21

shooting. Id. According to Woodell, if his trial counsel had consulted with a

neurologist, he would have been better prepared for trial. Id. Woodell also

attached to his Petition copies of several medical records and correspondence

with his neurologist relating to his diagnosis, dated between August 3, 2015,

and January 8, 2018. Id. Woodell asserts that these facts were unknown to

him and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence. Id.

A review of the record reveals that Woodell received his diagnosis on

August 3, 2015, four years before filing the instant PCRA Petition.

Additionally, Woodell, in his PCRA Petition, references several instances, prior

to trial in 2002, where he suffered seizures, either in police custody, in

meetings with trial counsel, in the hospital following the shooting, or while in

the Luzerne County Jail awaiting trial. See id. at 4. As a result, Woodell was

aware of his condition more than one year prior to the filing of the instant

PCRA Petition, and thus, his condition cannot constitute a new “fact.” See

Bennett, supra. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, we conclude that

Woodell has failed to plead and prove the newly-discovered fact exception.

As such, the PCRA court did not err in dismissing Woodell’s PCRA Petition as

untimely filed.

Order affirmed.

-7- J-S26037-21

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 11/5/2021

-8-