J-S40011-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
BOBBY JENE RIDDICK, JR.
Appellant No. 3179 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order September 8, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0002497-2010
BEFORE: BOWES, MUNDY AND MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED JULY 15, 2016
Bobby Jene Riddick, Jr., appeals pro se from the September 8, 2015
order denying him PCRA relief. We affirm.
On May 26, 2011, a jury convicted Appellant of second-degree murder,
robbery, burglary, conspiracy to commit robbery, and conspiracy to commit
burglary. We summarize the trial evidence. Early in the morning on July
15, 2008, Appellant, his mother Terrie Collopy, Marcus Breeland, and Alvin
Volney, who was the boyfriend of Appellant’s mother, were in Collopy’s
apartment in Allentown. They decided to rob David Walterick, who sold
marijuana. Volney knew Walterick and where he stored his drug money and
had successfully robbed Mr. Walterick on a previous occasion. Volney gave
J-S40011-16
Appellant a gun, but Volney did not accompany the other actors to the scene
since Mr. Walterick and his wife Leanne knew Volney.
At approximately 3:00 a.m., Collopy drove Appellant and Breeland to
the Allentown residence of the Waltericks, who were having coffee together
before Mr. Walterick left for work. Appellant and Breeland, wearing dark
hooded shirts tied tightly around their faces, broke into the home. Appellant
had the gun Volney had given him, pointed it at Leanne, and demanded
money. Mr. Walterick rose to protect his wife, and Appellant shot him in the
head, killing him. The co-conspirators fled back to Collopy’s residence, and
Volney cleaned Appellant’s clothing and disposed of the weapon.
At trial, Breeland testified that Appellant was the shooter. Appellant’s
handprint was found on the interior glass door leading to the main entrance
to the home. Burheen Darrell Smith testified that he knew Appellant,
discussed the shooting with him, and Appellant admitted that he fired the
shot that killed the victim. Dwayne Meyers related to the jury that in
November 2008, Appellant told Meyers that he was involved in a burglary
and robbery that had an unsuccessful outcome and that he shot the
homeowner.
Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, we
affirmed. Commonwealth v. Riddick, 63 A.3d 830 (Pa.Super. 2012)
(unpublished memorandum). Appellant petitioned for allowance of appeal
nunc pro tunc, the Supreme Court permitted Appellant to file that pleading,
-2-
J-S40011-16
with the petition for allowance of appeal ultimately denied on November 15,
2013. Commonwealth v. Riddick, 80 A.3d 776 (Pa. 2013). Appellant
filed a timely pro se PCRA petition on October 22, 2014, and counsel was
appointed. On January 21, 2015, counsel filed a petition to withdraw and a
no-merit letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa.
1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en
banc). After counsel was permitted to withdraw, Appellant represented
himself at a PCRA hearing held on August 27, 2015. The PCRA court denied
relief on September 8, 2015, and this appeal followed.
Appellant’s two and one-half page brief violates all of the applicable
rules of appellate procedure.1 It contains neither a procedural nor a factual
history of this case. The brief also lacks a statement of jurisdiction, the
applicable standard of review, a statement of the questions involved, and a
table of cited authorities. The document contains two legal citations that are
marginally relevant. Nevertheless, we will address the decipherable position
presented therein.
Appellant avers that the assistant district attorney committed
misconduct at trial in that he knowingly allowed false testimony from Marcus
____________________________________________
1
Appellant maintains in his brief that he was sixteen years old in 2007,
which raises a concern regarding whether he was a seventeen-year-old
juvenile when this July 15, 2008 murder transpired. Our review of the
record establishes that Appellant was born on June 7, 1990; he thus
committed the crime several weeks after becoming eighteen.
-3-
J-S40011-16
Breeland and Dwayne Meyers to remain uncorrected. The following facts are
pertinent. At trial, Breeland denied that he ever admitted to being the
triggerman. At the PCRA hearing, the assistant district attorney
acknowledged that, at the crime scene, Breeland told Collopy that he shot
Mr. Walterick. The prosecutor continued that Breeland made that statement
to Collopy, Appellant’s mother, only because she had heard the gunshot and
was upset. The prosecutor reported that Breeland immediately corrected
himself and “said no, no, I wasn’t the shooter,” and that, after Breeland
retracted his statement to Collopy, “[Appellant] then told Terrie Collopy that
he was the shooter.” N.T. PCRA Hearing, 8/27/15, at 57. Thus, the record
indicates that Breeland’s admission to Collopy was a lie that was instantly
recanted. Appellant’s second position is premised upon an allegation that
Meyers perjured himself at trial by indicating that he met Appellant in 2007
in the Allentown area whereas Appellant lived in Philadelphia in 2007. Our
review of the trial transcript establishes that Meyers indicated that he
became acquainted with Appellant in 2008. N.T. Trial, 5/24/11, at 158.
We conclude that Appellant’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct is
waived. The PCRA provides that “[t]o be eligible for relief under [the PCRA],
the petitioner must plead and prove . . . . [t]hat the allegation of error has
not been . . . waived.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543 (a)(3). For purposes of the PCRA,
“an issue is waived if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to do
so . . . on appeal[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b). Appellant could have raised on
-4-
J-S40011-16
direct appeal his position that the prosecutor allowed perjured testimony
from Breeland and Myers to go uncorrected. Additionally, Appellant does not
frame his contention in terms of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness for failing to
object to this purported prosecutorial misconduct in order to overcome
waiver. Finding Appellant’s present position on appeal waived, we affirm the
denial of PCRA relief.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/15/2016
-5-