J-S28038-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
LAMAR GURDINE,
Appellant No. 157 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order January 5, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0009766-2007
BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED APRIL 12, 2016
Appellant, Lamar Gurdine, appeals from the order of January 5, 2015,
which dismissed, without a hearing, his first counseled petition brought
under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
We affirm.
We take the underlying facts and procedural history in this matter
from this Court’s March 30, 2011 memorandum on direct appeal and our
independent review of the certified record.
At approximately 2:00 p.m. on February 16, 2007[,]
Philadelphia Police Officers [Joseph] McCauley and
[Michael] Maresca were in the area of 13th and Pike Streets
in Philadelphia when they heard gunfire. Officer McCauley
ran towards the gunfire and observed [A]ppellant and
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S28038-16
other males shooting at each other while running
southbound on 13th Street. When Officer McCauley
ordered them to drop their weapons, [A]ppellant pointed
his gun at the officer, said “[f**k] you,” and continued
running while firing at Officer McCauley. When Officer
Maresca then arrived on the scene, [A]ppellant turned and
pointed his weapon at Officer Maresca. Appellant pulled
the trigger, but the gun had no more ammunition and only
made a clicking sound.
(Commonwealth v. Gurdine, No. 909 EDA 2010, unpublished
memorandum at *2 (Pa. Super. filed March 30, 2011) (quoting Trial Court
Opinion, 6/09/10, at 2)).
On February 19, 2009, following a non-jury trial, the court found
Appellant guilty of two counts of attempted murder, possession of an
instrument of crime and related charges. On November 13, 2009, the trial
court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of incarceration of not less
than twenty-two and one-half nor more than forty-five years. On November
23, 2009, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion, which the trial court
denied by operation of law on March 24, 2010.
On March 30, 2011, this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence.
(See Commonwealth v. Gurdine, 26 A.3d 1211 (Pa. Super. 2011)). The
Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied leave to appeal on November 14, 2011.
(See Commonwealth v. Gurdine, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa. 2011)).
On January 24, 2012, Appellant, acting pro se, filed the instant timely
PCRA petition. On October 22, 2012, the PCRA court appointed counsel. On
February 21, 2013, PCRA counsel filed an amended PCRA petition. On
-2-
J-S28038-16
February 2, 2014, without seeking leave of court, counsel filed a
supplemental PCRA petition. On December 1, 2014, the PCRA court issued
notice of its intent to dismiss the petition pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of
Criminal Procedure 907(1). Appellant did not file a response to the Rule 907
notice. On January 5, 2015, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s PCRA
petition. The instant, timely appeal followed. The PCRA court did not order
Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. See
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Despite this, Appellant filed a Rule 1925(b) statement on
March 16, 2015. The PCRA court did not issue an opinion. See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a).
On appeal, Appellant raises the following questions for our review.
I. Whether the [PCRA court] was in error in not granting relief on
the PCRA petition alleging counsel was ineffective[?]
II. Whether the [PCRA court] was in error in denying[]
Appellant’s PCRA petition without an evidentiary hearing on the
issues raised in the amended PCRA petition regarding trial
counsel’s ineffectiveness[?]
(Appellant’s Brief, at 8).1
We review the denial of a post-conviction petition to determine
whether the record supports the PCRA court’s findings and whether its order
is otherwise free of legal error. See Commonwealth v. Faulk, 21 A.3d
1196, 1199 (Pa. Super. 2011). To be eligible for relief pursuant to the
____________________________________________
1
We have re-ordered Appellant’s arguments for ease of disposition.
-3-
J-S28038-16
PCRA, Appellant must establish, inter alia, that his conviction or sentence
resulted from one or more of the enumerated errors or defects found in 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2). He must also
establish that the issues raised in the PCRA petition have not been
previously litigated or waived. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(3). An
allegation of error “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.A. § 9544(b). Further,
. . . a PCRA petitioner is not automatically entitled to an
evidentiary hearing. We review the PCRA court’s decision
dismissing a petition without a hearing for an abuse of
discretion.
[T]he right to an evidentiary hearing on a post-
conviction petition is not absolute. It is within the
PCRA court’s discretion to decline to hold a hearing if
the petitioner’s claim is patently frivolous and has no
support either in the record or other evidence. It is
the responsibility of the reviewing court on appeal to
examine each issue raised in the PCRA petition in
light of the record certified before it in order to
determine if the PCRA court erred in its
determination that there were no genuine issues of
material fact in controversy and in denying relief
without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations
omitted).
In the first issue on appeal, Appellant contends that he received
ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel: (a) failed to file a
post-sentence motion challenging the weight of the evidence (see
-4-
J-S28038-16
Appellant’s Brief, at 17-20); and (b) failed to call two fact witnesses (see id.
at 21-23). We disagree.
Counsel is presumed effective, and an appellant bears the burden to
prove otherwise. See Commonwealth v. McDermitt, 66 A.3d 810, 813
(Pa. Super. 2013). The test for ineffective assistance of counsel is the same
under both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. See
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Commonwealth v.
Jones, 815 A.2d 598, 611 (Pa. 2002). An appellant must demonstrate that:
(1) his underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) the particular course of
conduct pursued by counsel did not have some reasonable basis designed to
effectuate his interests; and (3) but for counsel’s ineffectiveness, there is a
reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been
different. See Commonwealth v. Pierce, 786 A.2d 203, 213 (Pa. 2001),
abrogated on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726
(Pa. 2002). “A failure to satisfy any prong of the test for ineffectiveness will
require rejection of the claim.” Jones, supra at 611 (citation omitted).
Appellant first argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file
a post-sentence motion challenging the weight of the evidence. (See
Appellant’s Brief, at 17-20). We disagree.
A claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence concedes
that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. See Commonwealth
v. Moreno, 14 A.3d 133, 135 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 44 A.3d
-5-
J-S28038-16
1161 (Pa. 2012). The initial determination of credibility and weight to be
afforded the evidence is for the factfinder, who is free to believe all, part, or
none of the evidence presented. See Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d
327, 332-33 (Pa. Super. 2010), appeal denied, 29 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2011). A
court must not reverse a verdict on this type of claim unless that verdict is
so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice. See id.
It is difficult to ascertain the basis of Appellant’s claim that there was a
meritorious issue regarding the weight of the evidence. Appellant’s
argument on this issue is devoid of citation to the record. (See Appellant’s
Brief, 17-18). Further, Appellant never specifies the basis of the claim and
merely speaks vaguely of inconsistent testimony. (See id.). Assuming,
arguendo, that Appellant is referring to the inconsistencies highlighted in
trial counsel’s closing argument (see N.T. Trial, 2/19/09, at 72-80), we note
that the trial court, sitting as the finder-of-fact, clearly rejected these
arguments and found Appellant guilty despite those alleged inconsistencies.
(See id. at 84-85).2 Appellant utterly fails to explain why these same
arguments would have formed the basis for a successful post-sentence
motion challenging the weight of the evidence.
____________________________________________
2
In fact, when defense counsel asked the trial court to find Appellant not
guilty based upon the evidence, the court responded, “[y]ou’re serious?”
(Id. at 84).
-6-
J-S28038-16
After due consideration of the trial record concerning Appellant’s
engaging in a gunfight and shooting at two police officers, (see id. at 22-25,
44-47); this Court’s sense of justice was not shocked at all by the verdict
and we see no indication in the record that the trial court, the finder-of-fact
in this case, would have reconsidered its previous finding. See Kane, supra
at 332-33. We will not fault trial counsel for failing to file a non-meritorious
post-sentence motion challenging the weight of the evidence. See
Commonwealth v. Ross, 856 A.2d 93, 101 (Pa. Super. 2004), appeal
denied, 889 A.2d 1215 (Pa. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1045 (2006)
(declining to find trial counsel ineffective for not filing non-meritorious
weight of evidence motion).
Appellant next argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
call two fact witnesses. (See Appellant’s Brief, at 21-23). However,
Appellant waived this claim.
Appellant did not raise this issue in his amended PCRA petition. (See
Amended PCRA Petition, 2/21/13, at 2-3). Rather, he raised it for the first
time in his supplemental PCRA petition. (See Supplemental PCRA Petition,
1/21/14, at 1). It is long-settled that a PCRA petitioner must seek leave of
court to supplement a PCRA petition, and claims raised in an unauthorized
supplemental petition are waived. See Commonwealth v. Mason, -- A.3d
--, 2015 WL 9485173 at *12-13 (Pa. Dec. 29, 2015); see also Pa.R.Crim.P.
905(A). Since Appellant did not have leave of court to file his supplemental
-7-
J-S28038-16
petition, he waived his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
call two fact witnesses. See Mason, supra at *12-13; see also
Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 470, 484 (Pa. 2014) (claim waived where
appellant raised it in unauthorized supplemental PCRA petition).
Next, Appellant claims that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing
to challenge the discretionary aspects of sentence on direct appeal. (See
Appellant’s Brief, at 20-21). Specifically, he avers that appellate counsel
should have argued on direct appeal that the sentence was harsh and
unreasonable, that the trial court failed to consider mitigating circumstances
and rehabilitative needs, and that the trial court failed to place sufficient
reasons on the record to justify the sentence. (See id.). We disagree.
In regard to claims raised in PCRA petitions that appellate counsel was
ineffective for failing to raise certain issues on appeal, this Court, relying on
both Pennsylvania and United States Supreme Court decisions, has
reiterated that neither the Pennsylvania nor the United States Constitution
requires appellate counsel “to raise and to argue all colorable, nonfrivolous
issues” that a criminal defendant wishes to raise on appeal.
Commonwealth v. Showers, 782 A.2d 1010, 1015 (Pa. Super. 2001),
appeal denied, 814 A.2d 677 (Pa. 2002) (citing Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S.
745 (1983) for the proposition that expert appellate advocacy consists of the
removal of weaker issues and the focus on a few strong issues). In
Showers, we further stated:
-8-
J-S28038-16
Effective assistance of counsel on appeal is informed by
the exercise of the expertise with which counsel is presumably
imbued. It is the obligation of appellate counsel to present
issues which, in counsel’s professional judgment, “go for the
jugular” and do not get lost in a mound of other colorable,
nonfrivolous issues which are of lesser merit. Any evaluation of
the effectiveness of appellate counsel must strike a balance
between the duty to exercise professional judgment to limit the
number of issues presented and the duty not to fail to litigate a
substantial matter of arguable merit that presents a reasonable
probability that a different outcome would have occurred had it
been raised by prior counsel. It is the circumstances of the
particular case which must guide a court in determining whether
the truth-determining process was so undermined by the alleged
ineffectiveness that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence
could have taken place.
Showers, supra at 1016-17 (citations omitted). With this standard in
mind, we now address the specifics of Appellant’s claims.
Appellant contends that appellate counsel should have argued on
appeal that his sentence was harsh and unreasonable. (See Appellant’s
Brief, at 20). We have stated that:
[s]entencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of
the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on
appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In this context, an
abuse of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment.
Rather, the appellant must establish, by reference to the record,
that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law,
exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias
or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.
Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 109 A.3d 711, 731 (Pa. Super. 2015),
appeal denied, 125 A.3d 1198 (Pa. 2015) (citation omitted).
-9-
J-S28038-16
In the instant matter, the sentencing court had the benefit of a Pre-
Sentence Investigation Report (PSI). (See PSI, 4/17/09). We have stated
that:
[w]hen imposing a sentence, a court is required to
consider the particular circumstances of the offense and the
character of the defendant. . . . Where the sentencing court had
the benefit of a [PSI], we can assume the sentencing court was
aware of relevant information regarding the defendant’s
character and weighed those considerations along with
mitigating statutory factors. Further, where a sentence is within
the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the
sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010)
(quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, the sentencing court had the
benefit of a PSI and imposed a sentence within the standard range of the
guidelines. (See N.T. Sentencing, 11/13/09, at 3, 7). Thus, Pennsylvania
law views the sentence as appropriate and any claim on appeal that it was
harsh and excessive would have lacked merit. See Moury, supra at 171.
We will not fault appellate counsel for failing to raise a non-meritorious
claim. See Showers, supra at 1016-17.
Appellant also argues that counsel should have raised claims on direct
appeal that the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors, failed to
consider his rehabilitative needs, and did not place sufficient reasons on the
record to justify the sentence. (See Appellant’s Brief, at 20-21). However,
appellate counsel could not have raised these claims on direct appeal
because Appellant waived them at the trial court level.
- 10 -
J-S28038-16
Specifically, the only issued raised in Appellant’s post-sentence motion
was the length of his sentence. (See Post-Sentence Motion, 11/23/09, at
2). An appellant waives any discretionary aspects of sentence issue not
raised in a post-sentence motion; further, an appellant cannot raise an issue
for the first time on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788,
793-94 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, 831 A.2d 599 (Pa. 2003) (finding
claim sentencing court did not put sufficient reasons to justify sentence on
record waived where issue was not raised in post-sentence motion). We will
not fault counsel for failing to raise waived issues on appeal. See Showers,
supra at 1016-17. Appellant’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
claim lacks merit.
In his final claim, Appellant argues that the PCRA court erred in
dismissing his petition without an evidentiary hearing. (See Appellant’s
Brief, at 15-16). The Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure provide the
PCRA court with the discretion to dismiss a PCRA petition without an
evidentiary hearing if it is patently without merit. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 907.
Because Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims lack merit, he is
not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See Miller, supra at 992.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we affirm the PCRA
court’s dismissal of Appellant’s PCRA petition without a hearing.
Order affirmed.
- 11 -
J-S28038-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/12/2016
- 12 -
Com. v. Gurdine, L.
Combined Opinion