J-S21039-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ANTHONY SCOTT
Appellant No. 2330 EDA 2013
Appeal from the PCRA Order October 17, 2011
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0702311-2006
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., ALLEN, J., and OTT, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
Anthony Scott appeals, pro se, from the order entered October 17,
2011, in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, denying his
petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §
9541 et seq. Scott seeks relief from the judgment of sentence of an
imposed after the trial court, sitting without a jury, found him guilty of rape1
and related charges for the repeated
ineffectiveness, trial court error, and the unconstitutionality of a provision in
the Pennsylvania Constitution. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S § 3121.
J-S21039-14
Court in the unpublished memorandum decision affirming his judgment of
sentence on direct appeal:
ughter, J.W. Until she was six years old, J.W.
where they resided with [Scott]. [Scott] promptly began to
sexually abuse J.W. by touching her vagina and chest. The
abuse escalated and when the child was seven years old, [Scott]
raped her. [Scott] continued to have sexual intercourse with
J.W., and after she was ten years old, started to force her to
give him oral sex. In 2006, when she was in sixth grade, J.W.
told her best friend, B.D., about the abuse. B.D. encouraged
J.W. to report the crimes to the authorities, and J.W. followed
that advice on April 8, 2006. Two police officers arrived at the
home and took J.W. to be interviewed by a detective. While J.W.
that she did not believe the allegations and that J.W. was not
permitted to return home.
Commonwealth v. Scott, 988 A.2d 730 (Pa. Super. 2009) (unpublished
memorandum at 2).
Scott was subsequently arrested and charged with numerous sexual
offenses. The case proceeded to bench trial, and, on February 8, 2007, the
trial court found Scott guilty of rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse,
aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault, statutory sexual assault,
sexual assault, unlawful contact with minor, endangering the welfare of
children, corruption of minors, and simple assault.2 On October 12, 2007,
____________________________________________
2
18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3121, 3123(a)(1), 3125, 3126(a)(1), 3122.1, 3124.1,
6318(a)(6), 4304, 6301(a), and 2701(a), respectively.
-2-
J-S21039-14
the trial court found that Scott met the criteria for classification as a sexually
violent predator,3
On January 28, 2008, Scott filed a pro se PCRA petition. Counsel was
appointed, and filed a petition to withdraw and accompanying
Turner/Finley4
September 24, 2008, the trial court permitted defense counsel to withdraw
his Turner/Finley nunc pro
tunc. Scott then filed a direct appeal nunc pro tunc, and on November 25,
2009, a panel of this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence. See Scott,
supra.5
On February 16, 2010, Scott filed a timely, pro se PCRA petition.
Thereafter, he filed pro se amended and supplemental petitions both before
and after counsel was appointed on September 3, 2010. On January 3,
2011, PCRA counsel filed a motion for discovery,6 seeking: (1) the police
____________________________________________
3
42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10 et seq.
4
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
5
Scott raised only two issues in his direct appeal, both challenging the
ineffective assistance of trial counsel. A panel of this Court dismissed both
n a PCRA
petition. See Scott, supra.
6
discovery
shall be permitted at any stage of the [PCRA] proceedings, except upon
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-3-
J-S21039-14
reports;7
any exculpatory information; and (4) permission to subpoena all records
from the Department of Human Services (DHS) from 1999 through 2006.
Although the Commonwealth turned over all police reports and DHS records
8
Thereafter, on June 1, 2011, PCRA counsel filed an amended petition
the motion for discovery.9 Scott filed a pro se
amended petition, and the Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss the
PCRA petition. On September 14, 2011, the PCRA court issued notice,
pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, of its intent to dismiss the petition without
first conducting an evidentiary hearing, to which Scott, once again, filed a
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
leave of court after a showing of exceptional circumstances
Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(E)(1) (emphasis supplied).
7
PCRA counsel averred that he attempted to obtain copies of the police
reports from prior counsel, but was unsuccessful. See Motion for Discovery
Under Post Conviction Relief Act, 1/3/2011, at ¶ 5(a).
8
The Commonwealth further asserted that none of these records were in its
files.
9
Although no order specifically denying the motion for discovery is included
in the certified record, Scott avers in his amended petition that the PCRA
Under Post Conviction Relief Act, 6/1/2011, at ¶ 11.
-4-
J-S21039-14
pro se response. However, on October 17, 2011, the PCRA court dismissed
the PCRA petition, and Scott filed a timely notice of appeal.
While that appeal was pending, and after counsel filed a Rule 1925(b)
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, Scott filed a pro se
petition for withdrawal of counsel, claiming that PCRA counsel ignored the
issues he wished to raise on appeal, and requesting to proceed pro se. On
March 5, 2012, this Court directed the PCRA court to conduct a Grazier10
hearing pro se was knowing,
intelligent and voluntary. See Order, 3/5/2012. Following a hearing on
pro se.
Thereafter, counsel filed another concise statement pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), raising the same two issues included in the first
petition to proceed pro se. In an unpublished memorandum decision filed on
March 5, 2013
knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily asserted his right to self-
Commonwealth v. Scott, 69 A.3d 1282 (Pa. Super.
2013) (unpublished memorandum at 13). Accordingly, the panel vacated
the order denying PCRA relief and remanded for a proper Grazier hearing.
____________________________________________
10
Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).
-5-
J-S21039-14
Upon remand, the PCRA court held another Grazier hearing, and, on
request to proceed pro se. That same day,
This timely appeal followed.11
Scott raises the following nine issues for our review:
1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to
hearsay testimony at trial?
2. Whether the PCRA court erred in denying his motion for
discovery where exceptional circumstances were shown?
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion
in limine challenging the competency of the minor victim and witness, and
whether the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the Commonwealth
to introduce an out-of-court statement of the minor victim and witness in
derogation of 42 Pa.C.S. § 5985.1?
4.
____________________________________________
11
On April 26, 2013, the PCRA court ordered Scott to file a Rule 1925(b)
concise statement, and Scott compli
2013.
-6-
J-S21039-14
5. Whether the Commonwealth committed a Brady12 violation
when it withheld evidence contained in the DHS reports?
6.
evidence?
7. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for stipulating to
documents which inculpated Scott?
8.
Republican Form of Government clause, Article IV, Section 4, United States
9. Whether the cumulative effect of the foregoing errors warrants
a new trial or discharge?
See
Preliminarily, we note that to be eligible for PCRA relief, a petitioner
must plead and prove, inter alia
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
PCRA court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal to
Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 851 A.2d 883, 889 (Pa. 2004)
____________________________________________
12
Brady v. Marlyand, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
-7-
J-S21039-14
(citations omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 986 A.2d 759,
778 (Pa. 2009) (issues not preserved in PCRA petition are waived on
appeal).
Based upon the foregoing, we find issues four, five, six, and eight are
waived for our review. Issues four and six assert trial court error, and could
have been raised on direct appeal. Issues five and eight were not included
pro se
pro se
pro se Rule 1925(b) statement, and are,
therefore, waived for our review.13 Accordingly, we proceed to a discussion
When reviewing an order dismissing a PCRA petition, we must
determine whether the ruling of the PCRA court is supported by record
evidence and is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d
of the PCRA court, and these findings will not be disturbed unless they have
Commonwealth v. Carter, 21 A.3d
680, 682 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted).
____________________________________________
13
We note that Scott raised a Brady claim in a September, 2010 application
for leave to supplement his pro se PCRA petition. However, that Brady
claim referred to a purportedly missing police report, not DHS records.
-8-
J-S21039-14
ineffectiveness of counsel, our review is well-settled:
We begin our analysis of ineffectiveness claims with the
presumption that counsel is effective. To prevail on his
ineffectiveness claims, Appellant must plead and prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, three elements: (1) the
underlying legal claim has arguable merit; (2) counsel had no
reasonable basis for his action or inaction; and (3) Appellant
regard to the second, i.e.
en
offered a potential for success substantially greater than the
i.e., the
prejudice prong, Appellant must show that there is a reasonable
probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been
d
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244, 259-260 (Pa. 2011) (internal
Commonwealth v. Keaton, 45 A.3d 1050, 1061
(Pa. 2012) (citations omitted).
First, Scott argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to
confided that Scott had sexually abused her.14 y
____________________________________________
14
We note that the PCRA court found this issue waived for vagueness. See
PCRA Court Opinion, 9/17/2013, at 5-6. Although we acknowledge that
Scott did not specify what hearsay testimony he was challenging in his Rule
1925(b) concise statement, this issue was raised in his prior direct appeal
See Commonwealth v. Scott,
988 A.2d 730 (Pa. Super. 2009) (unpublished memorandum); Amended
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-9-
J-S21039-14
rule, pursuant to Pa.R.E. 613(c)(1), because (1) it was not offered to rebut a
specific charge of bias, but rather presented as affirmative evidence, and (2)
they were made four to five years after the alleged abuse began. See
-
stimony, could not be
considered harmless error because the prosecution rested entirely upon the
credibility of the victim.
The Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence define hearsay as a statement
ent trial or
hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter
-(2). Hearsay statements are
generally inadmissible at trial unless an exception to the hearsay rule
applies. Pa.R.E. 802. One such exception applies to the admission of a prior
consistent statement:
[P]rior consistent statements may be admitted to corroborate or
rehabilitate the testimony of a witness who has been impeached,
expressly or impliedly, as having a faulty memory, or as having
been induced to fabricate the testimony by improper motive or
influence. Admission of prior consistent statements on such
grounds is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court,
to be decided in light of the character and degree of
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
Petition Under Post Conviction Relief Act, 6/1/2011, at ¶ 7(1). Therefore, we
decline to find it waived for vagueness.
- 10 -
J-S21039-14
impeachment. It is not necessary that the impeachment be
direct; it may be implied, inferred, or insinuated either by cross-
examination, presentation of conflicting evidence, or a
combination of the two.
Commonwealth v. Hunzer, 868 A.2d 498, 512 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation
omitted), appeal denied, 880 A.2d 1237 (Pa. 2005). See Pa.R.Crim.P.
613(c)(1).
-examination
of the victim. During the cross-examination, defense counsel emphasized
that the victim did not tell any adults, including her mother, about the
abuse. More importantly, defense counsel implied the victim fabricated the
story after learning that her family might move to New Jersey. See N.T.,
2/8/2007, at 120-
victim had told her about the abuse, was admissible as a prior consistent
raise a
15
Next, Scott contends the PCRA court erred in denying his request to
16
He argues that, contrary
____________________________________________
15
Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247, 1259 (Pa. Super. 2014).
16
The PCRA court also found this issue waived for vagueness. Again, we
disagree. The documents Scott sought from the PCRA court were clearly set
See Motion for Discovery under Post
Conviction Relief Act, 1/3/2011. Therefore, we are able to discern his claim
on appeal.
- 11 -
J-S21039-14
Further, Scott claims that, although the victim denied she wrote about the
Id.
is likely that [the diary] could shed some light on the true story of what was
going on at the Id.
The Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure proscribe discovery
of a discovery request in post-conviction proceedings for abuse of
Commonwealth v. Hanible, 30 A.3d 426, 452 (Pa. 2011),
cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 835 (2013).
records or her diary contain any relevant, exculpatory evidence. In fact, he
has not even established that any medical records exist, let alone that they
would prove the victim had not been raped. Moreover, the victim testified
that she did not write about the assaults in her diary, and Scott has
presented no evidence to the contrary. See
will not sanction a fishing expedition when Appellant fails to provide even a
Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585, 591
- 12 -
J-S21039-14
(Pa. 2000). Accordingly, we detect no abuse of discretion on the part of the
In his third issue, Scott argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to file a motion in limine challenging the competency of the minor victim and
witness. Scott contends that where, as here, the witnesses are under the
Brief at 7, quoting Rosche v. McCoy, 156 A.2d 307, 311 (Pa. 1959).
statements should have been considered in an in camera hearing pursuant
to the tender years statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5985.1.17
____________________________________________
17
The Tender Years statute provides, in pertinent part:
(a) General rule.--An out-of-court statement made by a child
victim or witness, who at the time the statement was made was
12 years of age or younger, describing any of the offenses
[relating to sexual assault] not otherwise admissible by statute
or rule of evidence, is admissible in evidence in any criminal or
civil proceeding if:
(1) the court finds, in an in camera hearing, that the evidence is
relevant and that the time, content and circumstances of the
statement provide sufficient indicia of reliability; and
(2) the child either:
(i) testifies at the proceeding; or
(ii) is unavailable as a witness.
42 Pa.C.S. § 5985.1(a).
- 13 -
J-S21039-14
y argument as follows:
In order for a complainant to be competent, they must
have the capacity to communicate, the mental capacity to
observe and remember the occurrence, and a consciousness of
the duty to speak the truth. Commonwealth v. R.P.S., 737
A.2d 747, 749 (Pa. Super. 1999)(quoting Rosche v. McCoy,
156 A.2d 307, 310 (Pa. 1959)). Once it is determined that the
complainant is competent it is up to the fact finder to determine
Commonwealth v.
Blackeney, 946 A.2d 645, 653 (2008)[, cert. denied, 555 U.S.
trial is presumed and the burden falls on the objecting party to
demonstrate incompetence. Commonwealth v. Harvey, 812
A.2d 1190, 1199 (Pa. 2002). However, when a child under the
age of fourteen is called to testify, the competency of the minor
must be independently established. Courts have held that a
separate colloquy in order to determine the understanding of the
oath is not necessary if the trial court has the opportunity to
Id. In the instant case, J.W.
was able to understand the questions asked of her by counsel
and was able to frame and express intelligent answers to those
questions regarding the details of the abuse. Any challenges
would have been denied; therefore, this claim is meritless.
PCRA Court Opinion, 9/17/2013, at 7-8. We agree. Although the trial court
should have conducted a separate colloquy, pursuant to Harvey, to
determine the competency of the minor victim and witness, who were 13
and 14 years old respectively, the court sat as fact finder in this non-jury
There
distinct colloquy regarding the truthfulness aspects of [their] competency did
Harvey, supra, 812 A.2d at 1199. Accordingly, no
relief is warranted on this claim.
- 14 -
J-S21039-14
18
We
as prior consistent statements pursuant to Pa.R.E. 613(c)(1). See supra.
The tender years exception in Section 5985.1 provides yet another exception
to the hearsay rule. See Hunzer, supra, 868 A.2d at 510. Because we
have already found that the testimony was admissible under Rule 613(c)(1),
trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a challenge under Section
5985.1. See Commonwealth v. Curley, 910 A.2d 692, 698-699 (Pa.
Super. 2006) (discussing the differences between Pa.R.Crim.P. 613(c) and
42 Pa.C.S. § 5985.1), appeal denied, 927 A.2d 622 (Pa. 2007). Therefore,
again, no relief is warranted.
In his seventh issue, Scott argues counsel was ineffective for
stipulating to documents that inculpated him in the crimes. Specifically,
DHS records. He contends the documents are
Moreover, he notes the records also list three other dates of allegations, two
Id.
____________________________________________
18
Although Scott does not specify which out-of-court statements he is
statements J.W. made to her about the abuse.
- 15 -
J-S21039-14
A review of the trial transcript reveals that trial counsel stipulated as
may contain some hearsay testimony, we remind Scott that he was tried
in criminal cases are presumed to ignore prejudicial evidence in reaching a
Commonwealth v. Dent, 837 A.2d 571, 582 (Pa. Super. 2003)
(citation omitted), appeal denied, 863 A.2d 1143 (Pa. 2004). Scott simply
stipulation to the DHS records.19
ineffectiv
discharge. We disagree.
It is well-settled that no number of failed ineffectiveness claims
may collectively warrant relief if they fail to do so individually.
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 600 Pa. 329, 966 A.2d 523, 532
(2009). Accordingly, where ineffectiveness claims are rejected
for lack of arguable merit, there is no basis for an accumulation
claim. Commonwealth v. Sattazahn, 597 Pa. 648, 952 A.2d
640, 671 (2008).
____________________________________________
19
incident, we note that Scott has not demonstrated that that incident
involved the victim, nor that it involved an allegation of sexual assault.
Further, as we noted supra, Scott could have subpoenaed additional records
from DHS, but failed to do so.
- 16 -
J-S21039-14
Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35, 75 (Pa. 2012), cert. denied, 134
S. Ct. 178 (U.S. 2013).
this appeal are worthy of relief, we affirm the order of the PCRA court
Order af pro se Motion for Reconsideration/Remand is
denied.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/24/2014
- 17 -