J-S35033-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
ANTHONY WRIGHT, :
:
Appellant : No. 2886 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order September 21, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Criminal Division, No(s): CP-51-CR-0014984-2007
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BENDER, P.J.E. and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED MAY 31, 2016
Anthony Wright (“Wright”) appeals from the Order dismissing his
Petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 1 We
affirm.
The PCRA court set forth the relevant factual and procedural
background in its Opinion, which we adopt for purposes of this appeal. See
PCRA Court Opinion, 12/8/15, at 1-3.
On appeal, Wright raises the following issue for our review: “Did the
PCRA court err in denying [Wright] an evidentiary hearing when [he] raised
a material issue of fact?” Brief for Appellant at 2.
Wright contends that the PCRA court erred in denying his request for
an evidentiary hearing regarding newly discovered evidence that showed his
innocence of the crimes of which he was convicted. Brief for Appellant at 6.
1
See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S35033-19
Wright asserts that, 1½ years after his trial, his co-defendant, Kevin Bates
(“Bates”), testified in another case that the testimony he provided at
Wright’s trial was coerced by detectives, and that it was Bates (rather than
Wright) who possessed the gun and shot Doreen Williams during the
incident. Id. Wright claims that Bates also stated that, pursuant to Bates’s
agreement with prosecutors, Bates thought that he would receive a prison
sentence of 12½ years to 25 years if he testified at Wright’s trial, rather
than the 20-40 year prison sentence that he received. Id. Wright argues
that Bates’s subsequent trial testimony constitutes newly discovered
evidence which raised a material issue of fact as to Wright’s innocence,
requiring the PCRA court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 8.
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.
Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations
omitted).
The PCRA court addressed Wright’s claim and concluded that it lacks
merit. See PCRA Court Opinion, 12/8/15, at 7-8; see also id. at 3-7
(explaining why the Bates’s testimony was not exculpatory). We agree with
the reasoning of the PCRA court and affirm on this basis. See id. at 7-8.
Order affirmed.
-2-
J-S35033-19
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/31/2016
-3-
Circulated 05/03/2016 03:59 PM
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
FILED
vs. D. c.re.· \.} u
!"! (';: ·. ,1,r:.
i, ., . ... ,
=Post Trial Unit
ANTHONY WRIGHT CP-51-CR-0014984-2007
OPINION
2886 EDA 2015
LEON W. TUCKER, J. DATE: December 8, 2015
I. Procedural History and Facts
This matter comes before the Superior Court on appeal from the denial of a Post Conviction
Relief Act1 ("PCRA") Petition filed by Anthony Wright (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner") in
~~'-
which Petitioner sought an evidentiary hearing and' a new trial based upon claims of after-
discovered exculpatory evidence.
On July 22, 2007, the Petitioner and an accomplice, Kevin Bates, arranged to purchase
crack cocaine from the decedent, Doreen Williams. Unbeknownst to the decedent, the Petitioner
. ~~·-·
and Bates intended to rob her. That evening, the decedentwas driven to North Philadelphia by
Charles Smith, an acquaintance. Upon arriving at the agreed upon meeting place, Bates and
Petitioner separately entered Smith's vehicle. Prior to exiting the car, the Petitioner shot the
decedent at point-blank range. The decedent died several days later, due to complications from the
. ~.:.":":"·
gunshot wound. At Petitioner's trial, Smith identified the Petitioner as the shooter and testified
about the robbery and shooting. Additionally, Bates also identified the Petitioner as the shooter, as
part of a negotiated guilty plea agreement with the Commonwealth.
1
42 PA. CONS. STAT.§§ 9541-9546 (2015).
'"-......, . . ..
On September 23, 2009, the Petitioner was convicted of Murder of the First Degree2,
Conspiracy- Robbery- Inflict Serious Bodily Injury3, Robbery- Threat of Serious Bodily Injury4,
Possession of an Instrument of a Crime5''ci>IC"), and Recklessly Endangering Another Person6
("REAP") after a jury trial. On December 4, 2009, Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment
for First Degree Murder. He was also sentenced to a concurrent sentence often to twenty years of
incarceration for the conspiracy and robbery charges, a consecutive sentence of five years of
probation for PIC and a sentence of two years of probation for REAP, to run concurrent with the
PIC sentence.
On December 11, 2009, Petitioner appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. On
February 16, 2012, the Superior Court affirmed Petitioner's judgment of sentence. On March 1,
~.
2012, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvani~td~nied Petitioner's Petition for Allowance of Appeal.
On February 11, 2013, Petitioner, prose, timely filed the instant PCRA Petition as it was
filed within one year of when his conviction became final. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9545(b) (2015).
Petitioner filed a series of Amended PCRA Petitions on May 20, 2013, May 9, 2014, and January
~?Z.~~.·
12, 2015. On July 14, 2015, the Commonwealth fileda Motion to Dismiss Petitioner's Amended
PCRA Petition. On July 20, 2015, after reviewing Petitioner's Amended PCRA Petition arguing
for relief based on newly discovered evidence and the Commonwealth's Motion to Dismiss, the
Court issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss pursuant to Pa. R. Crim. P. 907, finding Petitioner's
:.1.,.
for further proceedings, it may dismiss the PCRA petition without a hearing. Id.
In the instant matter, this Court reviewed Petitioner's PCRA petition7, filed on January
12, 2015, in which Petitioner argued after-discovered evidence warranted a new trial. The Court
7
Petitioner filed three additional PCRA petitions on February 11, 2013, May 20, 2013, and May 9, 2014. Petitioner
argued claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and other trial-related errors in those
petitions, which the Court also dismissed. Inasmuch as those issues were not raised in the 1925(b) Statement in the
instant matter, those issues are not addressed here and deemed waived. See Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d
775, 780 (Pa. 2005).
7
also reviewed the Commonwealth's answer, its Motion to Dismiss, filed on July 14, 2015.
Additionally, the Court reviewed the exhibits accompanying both the petition and the
Commonwealth's response prior to ordering the Notice oflntent to Dismiss on July 20, 2015 and
formally dismissing the PCRA Petition on September 21, 2015. The Court found that the
:.~"'.'to·~·
"Petitioner fail[ed] to state a claim for post-conviction relief based on after-discovered evidence
because the proffered newly discovered evidence is not exculpatory in nature." Order Entered by
J. Tucker, July 21, 2015.
Petitioner did not raise any genuine issues of material
-..,f'~';f>,·, -».
fact as the Commonwealth
acknowledged there was additional testimony about Petitioner's possession of the murder
weapon and Bates' negotiated guilty plea agreement in a separate trial. Com. Mot. to Dismiss 5-
8, July 14, 2015. As the Court discussed above, the Court found the evidence was not
exculpatory in nature and defendant was... ,....thereby
. , ~·.,-;;-:"\'-
not entitled to post-conviction relief. Lastly,
this Court found any further proceedings on the matter would not serve any exonerating purpose,
as the Court reviewed the numerous petitions, answers and accompanying exhibits prior to its
determination. Therefore, this Court did not err when it denied Petitioner's request for an
evidentiary hearing on his claim of after-discovered exculpatory
.~,
..;~,.~-~~·"-·
evidence .
III. Conclusion
For the above reasons, this Court did not err in denying Petitioner Wright's request for a new
trial or dismissing Petitioner's PCRA Petition without an evidentiary hearing. The Court's ruling
should stand.
8
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH V. ANTHONY WRIGHT CP-51-CR-0014984-2007
Opinion
PROOF OF SERVICE
Ihereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing Court Order upon the person(s)
and in the manner indicated below, in accordance with the requirements of PA. R.CRIM.P. 114:
Defense Counsel/Party: John Cotter, Esquire
2541 S Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19148
Type of Service: ( ) Personal ( X) First Class Mail ( ) Other, please specify
District Attorney: Hugh J. BumsrJr., Esquire
District Attorney's Office
Widener Building
3 South Penn Sq.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Type of Service: ( ) Personal ( X) First Class Mail ( ) Other, please specify
Dated:
9