Opinion
J-S51025-19 No. 399 MDA 2019
09-27-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. RANDY TAFT Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 18, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tioga County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-59-CR-0000152-1987 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., GANTMAN, P.J.E., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.:
Appellant, Randy Taft, appeals from the order entered in the Tioga County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his serial petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). We affirm.
In its opinion, the PCRA court set forth the relevant facts of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Procedurally, on April 18, 1988, Appellant entered an open plea of nolo contendere to two counts of murder generally. The court held a degree-of-guilt hearing that day, and found Appellant guilty of one count of first-degree murder and one count of third-degree murder. The court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment for the first-degree murder conviction, and imposed a consecutive 10-to-20 year sentence for the third-degree murder conviction. Appellant did not obtain direct review.
Between 1990 and 2012, Appellant unsuccessfully litigated multiple PCRA petitions. In 2014 and 2015, Appellant received two letters from the Department of Justice ("DOJ"), discussing a FBI investigation into the examiner who performed the hair analysis in Appellant's case and indicating the hair analysis in Appellant's case contained erroneous statements. Appellant filed the current, serial pro se PCRA petition on January 26, 2015, and amended counseled petitions on June 1, 2015 and August 24, 2015, claiming the DOJ letters constituted "newly-discovered facts." Appellant insisted he would have gone to trial if he had known the hair analysis contained erroneous statements and was inadmissible.
On October 20, 2015, the court issued notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing, per Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. The court dismissed the petition as untimely on January 29, 2016. This Court affirmed on October 13, 2017. See Commonwealth v. Taft , 179 A.3d 562 (Pa.Super. 2017). On March 21, 2018, our Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further consideration, in light of Commonwealth v. Chmiel , 643 Pa. 216, 173 A.3d 617 (2017) (holding FBI's concession of widespread error in microscopic hair analysis constituted newly-discovered fact and date of FBI's concession triggered statutory window to submit timely PCRA claim). See Commonwealth v. Taft , 645 Pa. 745, 182 A.3d 990 (2018) (per curiam). On remand, this Court reversed the January 29, 2016 order denying PCRA relief and remanded for a hearing on the merits of Appellant's underlying after-discovered evidence claim. See Commonwealth v. Taft , 194 A.3d 686 (Pa.Super. 2018).
The court held a PCRA hearing on December 14, 2018. Appellant testified at the hearing, inter alia, that defense counsel told him the FBI had matched his hair sample with evidence collected at the crime scene and the Commonwealth was going to seek the death penalty. Appellant said defense counsel advised him to enter a plea of nolo contendere in light of the incriminating hair analysis evidence to avoid the possibility of the death penalty. Appellant claimed he would have probably gone to trial if he knew the hair analysis evidence was inadmissible. ( See N.T. PCRA Hearing, 12/14/18, at 4-7; R.R. at 65a-68a). The Commonwealth did not present any witnesses. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court gave the parties the opportunity to file briefs.
Following briefing, the PCRA court denied relief on February 13, 2019. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on March 6, 2019. On March 22, 2019, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant complied.
Appellant raises one issue for our review:
SHOULD [APPELLANT] BE PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE BECAUSE [OF] THE AFTER-DISCOVERED FACT THAT HAIR ANALYSIS EVIDENCE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AT TRIAL WAS
ERRONEOUS BECAUSE IT EXCEEDED THE LIMITS OF SCIENCE AND WAS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE?(Appellant's Brief at 2).
Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to examining whether the record evidence supports the court's determination and whether the court's decision is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Ford , 947 A.2d 1251 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 598 Pa. 779, 959 A.2d 319 (2008). This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if the record contains any support for those findings. Commonwealth v. Boyd , 923 A.2d 513 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 593 Pa. 754, 932 A.2d 74 (2007). If the record supports a post-conviction court's credibility determination, it is binding on the appellate court. Commonwealth v. Dennis , 609 Pa. 442, 17 A.3d 297 (2011).
To obtain relief on a substantive after-discovered-evidence claim under the PCRA once jurisdiction is established, a petitioner must demonstrate: (1) the evidence has been discovered after trial and it could not have been obtained at or prior to trial through reasonable diligence; (2) the evidence is not cumulative; (3) it is not being used solely to impeach credibility; and (4) it would likely compel a different verdict. Commonwealth v. Washington , 592 Pa. 698, 927 A.2d 586 (2007). See also Commonwealth v. Small , ___ Pa. ___, 189 A.3d 961 (2018) (discussing quality of proposed "new evidence" and stating new evidence must be of higher grade or character than previously presented on material issue to support grant of new trial).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable John B. Leete, we conclude Appellant's issue merits no relief. The PCRA court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Opinion and Order on Amended PCRA Petition following Remand, filed February 13, 2019, at 7-8) (finding: Appellant's claim, that he would not have entered nolo contendere plea if he had known hair analysis used in his case was inadmissible, lacks merit; given vast evidence against Appellant demonstrated at his preliminary hearing and degree-of-guilt hearing immediately following plea, Appellant's decision to enter plea was based on all evidence Commonwealth had against Appellant, not just hair analysis evidence, which was only small part; Appellant failed to satisfy after-discovered evidence test to warrant PCRA relief). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court's opinion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 09/27/2019
Image materials not available for display.