J-S69035-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
SCHNEIDER CHINE,
Appellant No. 534 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order of February 27, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000096-2009
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., AND OLSON, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED DECEMBER 29, 2015
Appellant, Schneider Chine, appeals from the order entered on
February 27, 2015 in the Criminal Division of the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County that dismissed Appellant’s petition filed pursuant to the
Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. In addition,
counsel has filed a petition to withdraw from further representation and a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).1 Upon
____________________________________________
1
Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders, apparently in the mistaken belief
that an Anders brief is required where counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal
from the denial of PCRA relief. A Turner/Finley no-merit letter, however, is
the appropriate filing. See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa.
1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en
banc). However, because an Anders brief provides greater protection to a
defendant, this Court may accept an Anders brief in lieu of a Turner/Finley
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S69035-15
review, we grant counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm the dismissal of
Appellant’s PCRA petition.
The PCRA court summarized the facts as follows:
On October 28, 2008, [Appellant] shot the victim, Jaleel Thomas,
two times in the back of the head.2 Shortly before the fatal
shooting, the victim’s brother, Shawn Thomas, received a call
from a friend, Jude Lundi, indicating that he had been robbed by
a friend of Jaleel and Shawn Thomas. The victim and his brother
then went to Jude’s house on 2nd and Albanus in an effort to
resolve the situation. Upon arrival, Shawn and Jaleel Thomas
saw Jude Lundi, Javon Gateward (AKA Rackles), and [Appellant]
(AKA S-Dot), outside of Jude’s house on 2nd and Albanus. The
five men began talking and Shawn Thomas explained that he
knew the suspected perpetrator of the robbery, but that he did
not intend to tell Jude, Rackles, or [Appellant] where they could
find the robber. At this point, [Appellant] became angry with
Shawn Thomas and his brother, the victim herein, because they
would not summon the robber or tell the men where he could be
located.
Shawn Thomas and [Appellant] then got into a verbal argument
during which Shawn Thomas challenged [Appellant to] a fight.
No fight ensued because the victim calmed his brother down and
told him to “chill.” Shawn Thomas then asked his brother for the
keys to the car, but [Appellant] said, “Fuck that.” And pulled a
black revolver from somewhere under his clothing. Shawn
Thomas then tapped his brother Jaleel, who had his back to
[Appellant] and did not see that [Appellant] had pulled out a
gun, after which he began to run from [Appellant]. As Shawn
ran, he heard one gun shot, followed by a brief pause, and then
two more shots. Although one shot missed, two of them stuck
the victim in the back of his head, killing him.
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
no-merit letter. Commonwealth v. Widgins, 29 A.3d 816, 817 (Pa. Super.
2011).
2
The victim was also referred to as having the last name “Loving.”
-2-
J-S69035-15
Shawn Thomas ran across the street in the direction of 3 rd Street
to hide behind a car. Within seconds, Shawn poked his head out
around the car to look for his brother, Jaleel, and saw him lying
on the ground. Additionally, Shawn Thomas heard [Appellant]
say, “Yeah, pussy, boom, boom.” At that point, Shawn rushed
back over to his brother as the three men, Jude Lundi, Rackles,
and [Appellant] fled the scene in the direction of 2 nd Street and
eventually got into a vehicle that was driven away. The police
then arrived and the victim was taken to Albert Einstein Medical
Center, where he was pronounced dead at approximately 8:10
p.m. on October 29, 2008. An autopsy was performed during
which the cause of death was deemed to be two gunshot wounds
to the back of the head.
[Appellant] was arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant on
November 20, 2008. Once in police custody, he agreed to give
police a statement. In it, he stated that he thought that when
the victim went to retrieve his car keys, he was doing so to give
them to his brother, who then was going to retrieve a gun from
the brothers’ car[. Appellant based this belief on the fact that
when Jaleel] asked for the keys, he said he wanted them to get
a “burner” (gun). [Appellant], then admitted that he fired three
shots at the back of the victim’s head; the first missed but the
second two hit the victim. [Appellant] testified at trial and
repeated that he shot the victim in self-defense.
[Appellant] was found guilty of first-degree murder and
possessing instruments of crime, generally, following a jury
trial[.] On February 7, 2011, [Appellant] received the
mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole on the
first-degree murder conviction and a concurrent sentence of two
and one-half to five years’ incarceration on the weapons offense.
Following imposition of sentence, [Appellant] filed a post-
sentence motion which th[e trial c]ourt denied without a hearing.
[Appellant] thereafter filed a [direct] appeal[.]
On February 13, 2012, the Superior Court issued an opinion and
order affirming the judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v.
Chine, 40 A.3d 1239 (Pa. Super. 2012). [Appellant] filed a
petition for allowance of appeal, which the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court denied on March 12, 2013. Commonwealth v.
Chine, 63 A.3d 773 (Pa. 2013).
-3-
J-S69035-15
On November 5, 2013, [Appellant] filed a counseled petition
pursuant to the PCRA]. Th[e PCRA c]ourt, after carefully
reviewing the various filings filed by the parties[,] determined
that the claim raised by [Appellant] lacked merit and did not
warrant a hearing. On December 9, 2014, th[e PCRA c]ourt
[issued] a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of intent to dismiss. No
response was filed and on January 13, 2015, th[e PCRA c]ourt
issued an order denying [Appellant] post-conviction collateral
relief. Following the dismissal of his PCRA petition, petitioner
filed pro se a notice of appeal.3
PCRA Court Opinion, 3/11/15, at 1-4 (footnotes in original).
On appeal, Appellant’s counsel raises a single issue for our review:
WHETHER THERE ARE ANY ISSUES OF ARGUABLE MERIT THAT
COULD BE RAISED ON APPEAL PRESENTLY BEFORE THIS COURT
AND WHETHER THE APPEAL IS WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS?
Turner/Finley Brief at 4.
Prior to reviewing the merits of this appeal, we first decide whether
counsel fulfilled the procedural requirements for withdrawing as counsel.
Commonwealth v. Doty, 48 A.3d 451, 454 (Pa. Super. 2012). As we
have explained:
Counsel petitioning to withdraw from PCRA representation
must proceed ... under Turner, supra and Finley, supra
and must review the case zealously. Turner/Finley
counsel must then submit a “no-merit” letter to the trial
court, or brief on appeal to this Court, detailing the nature
and extent of counsel's diligent review of the case, listing
the issues which petitioner wants to have reviewed,
____________________________________________
3
It is noted that PCRA counsel was not relieved as counsel nor did he move
to be relieved. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 120. Th[e PCRA c]ourt has [] ascertained
that [Appellant] does not have sufficient funds to retain counsel and directed
that counsel be appointed to represent him [on] appeal.
-4-
J-S69035-15
explaining why and how those issues lack merit, and
requesting permission to withdraw.
Counsel must also send to the petitioner: (1) a copy of the
“no merit” letter/brief; (2) a copy of counsel's petition to
withdraw; and (3) a statement advising petitioner of the
right to proceed pro se or by new counsel.
* * *
Where counsel submits a petition and no-merit letter that ...
satisfy the technical demands of Turner/Finley, the court—
trial court or this Court—must then conduct its own review
of the merits of the case. If the court agrees with counsel
that the claims are without merit, the court will permit
counsel to withdraw and deny relief.
Id.
Here, counsel satisfied all of the above procedural requirements and
Appellant did not respond to counsel’s request to withdraw. Thus, having
concluded that counsel's petition to withdraw is Turner/Finley compliant,
we now undertake our own review of the case to consider whether the PCRA
court erred in dismissing Appellant's petition.
In reviewing the denial of PCRA relief,
we examine whether the PCRA court's determination is
supported by the record and free of legal error. To be entitled to
PCRA relief, an appellant must establish, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that his conviction or sentence resulted from one
or more of the enumerated errors in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2);
his claims have not been previously litigated or waived, id. §
9543(a)(3); and the failure to litigate the issue prior to or during
trial or on direct appeal could not have been the result of any
rational, strategic, or tactical decision by counsel. Id. §
9543(a)(4).
-5-
J-S69035-15
Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 2015 WL 1888580, at *7 (Pa. 2015)
(quotations, ellipsis and some citations omitted).
We carefully reviewed the certified record, the appellate submissions
of the parties, and the opinion of the PCRA court. Based upon our review,
we are satisfied that the PCRA court correctly determined that there is no
merit to the sole issue discussed by counsel for Appellant. As the PCRA
court adequately and accurately addressed this claim, we adopt the PCRA
court’s reasons as our own. We are also convinced by our independent
review of the record that there are no other issues of arguable merit in this
case. Hence, we grant counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm the order of
the PCRA court.
Order affirmed. Counsel’s petition to withdraw granted.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/29/2015
-6-