J-S10017-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DARIAN PERSON
Appellant No. 265 EDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 18, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0013496-2014
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., STABILE, and COLINS,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED JUNE 19, 2019
Appellant, Darian Person, appeals from the December 18, 2017 order
denying his petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42
Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. We affirm.
The PCRA court recited the pertinent facts on the record at the PCRA
hearing:
On 9/22, 2014, [Appellant] was with a group of individuals,
including [Q.D.], [S.M.], [R.F.], and [A.T.], that this group was
looking for another group of young people, who had been in an
altercation with some of their friends a few days prior, that this
group was walking around, that they came into contact with
another group of teenagers and that they began fighting, that that
fight was broken up by the SEPTA police, that, thereafter, the fight
sparked up again as the other group followed [Appellant] and his
group from the area.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S10017-19
At the point in which the fight started up again, [Q.G.] yelled
to [Appellant] get the gat, get the gat and at that point,
[Appellant] took a .22 caliber weapon from the backpack of one
of the others and fired four or five shots into the crowd of
individuals that were fighting. [D.B.] was struck twice and
survived, [A.A-B.], a fifteen-year-old bystander, was struck in the
left side of the back and was killed. At least five witnesses
identified [Appellant] as the shooter. All were his friends who had
been there with him except a woman, who attempted to grab
[Appellant] after the shooting, and identified him in a photo array.
N.T. Hearing, 12/18/17, at 114-16.
On December 2, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to
third degree murder, aggravated assault, and conspiracy. The
Commonwealth reduced the murder charge from first to third degree in
exchange for the plea. The trial court imposed an aggregate 25 to 50 years
of incarceration, and Appellant did not file a direct appeal. On September 8,
2016, Appellant filed this timely first PCRA petition seeking, among other
things, reinstatement of the right to file a direct appeal. The PCRA court
conducted a hearing on December 18, 2017. The PCRA court found, among
other things, that Appellant received a favorable plea bargain and that he
never asked plea counsel to file a direct appeal on his behalf. The PCRA court
therefore denied relief. This timely appeal followed.
Appellant raises a single issue for our review:
Was the PCRA court correct in denying reinstatement of
[Appellant’s] rights nunc pro tunc when, after an evidentiary
hearing, the court credited trial counsel’s testimony that
[Appellant] never communicated to counsel his interest in
appealing after entering his negotiated guilty plea?
-2-
J-S10017-19
Appellant’s Brief at 1.1
On review, we must determine whether the PCRA court’s findings are
supported by the record and free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Pitts,
981 A.2d 875, 878 (Pa. 2009). Appellant claims counsel was ineffective for
failing to file a requested appeal and/or failing to consult Appellant about the
possibility of an appeal. To overcome the presumption of counsel’s
effectiveness, a PCRA petitioner must plead and prove that the underlying
issue has arguable merit; that counsel had no reasonable strategic basis for
the disputed action or inaction; and that the result of the proceeding would
have been different but for counsel’s error. Commonwealth v. King, 57
A.3d 607, 613 (Pa. 2012).
“[W]hen a lawyer fails to file a direct appeal requested by the defendant,
the defendant is automatically entitled to reinstatement of his direct appeal
rights.” Commonwealth v. Markowitz, 32 A.3d 706, 714 (Pa. Super.
2011), appeal denied, 40 A.3d 1235 (Pa. 2012). Instantly, Appellant
testified that he requested a direct appeal, and counsel testified that Appellant
did not do so. Appellant produced a letter he claims he sent to counsel, but
____________________________________________
1 During the proceedings before the PCRA court, counsel filed a petition to
withdraw pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988)
and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
The PCRA court never ruled on the petition and never permitted counsel to
withdraw. At the conclusion of the PCRA hearing, counsel agreed to file a
notice of appeal on Appellant’s behalf. N.T. Hearing, 12/18/17, at 132-33.
Counsel has remained on the case and filed a brief on Appellant’s behalf.
-3-
J-S10017-19
there was no evidence the letter was mailed and the PCRA court disbelieved
its authenticity. Appellant also claims he asked several family members to
contact counsel about filing a direct appeal, but he produced no evidence to
support that claim. The PCRA court found counsel credible and Appellant not
credible. “The PCRA court’s credibility determinations, when supported by the
record, are binding on this Court.” Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d
1210, 1214 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc), appeal dismissed, 140 A.3d 675
(Pa. 2016). For the reasons explained in the PCRA court’s April 18, 2018
opinion, we agree that this issue lacks merit.
Next, we consider Appellant’s argument that counsel was ineffective for
failing to consult with him about filing a direct appeal. The United States
Supreme Court has held as follows:
[C]ounsel has a constitutionally imposed duty to consult
with the defendant about an appeal when there is reason to think
either (1) that a rational defendant would want to appeal (for
example, because there are nonfrivolous grounds for appeal), or
(2) that this particular defendant reasonably demonstrated to
counsel that he was interested in appealing. In making this
determination, courts must take into account all the information
counsel knew or should have known.
Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 480 (2000).
Instantly, the PCRA court found that Appellant’s plea bargain was very
favorable, given the overwhelming evidence of his guilt and the high likelihood
of a conviction for first-degree murder if Appellant proceeded to trial. And, as
we have already explained, the PCRA court credited counsel’s testimony that
Appellant did not demonstrate interest in taking a direct appeal. For the
-4-
J-S10017-19
reasons explained in the PCRA court’s April 18, 2018 opinion, we agree that
this issue lacks merit. We direct that a copy of that opinion be filed along with
this memorandum.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/19/19
-5-
Circulated 05/29/2019 04:34 PM
F�LED
2018 APR I B PM �: d� THE COURT OJ.' COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA
OFFICE Or .JIJOlCl,':.\. RECORDS CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISlON
Cf:!Hli�AL. OlVlSIU�
i-l!�J.'f ·G0.MM0N�\J£ALTH OF PENNSYLVANJA
ut t;r..r��\ J f Lt:H�H"\
CP-51-CR-0013496-2014
v, 265 EDA 2018
DARIAN PERSON
Cl>,51.CR-0013"-9(>-,0U Cotnnl, v. f'c,.OP, r.:anao L
Cf'trnvn
OPINION 1111111111111111111111111
8097649551
Rose Marie Defino-Nastasi, J.
PROCEDURJ\L HISTORY
On December 2, 2015, Petitioner entered into a negotiated guilty plea before this court to
murder of the third degree, 18 Pa. C.S. §2502 (c), as a felony of the first degree; conspiracy to
commit murder, 18 Pa. C.S. §903, as a felony of the first degree; and aggravated assault, l 8 Pa.
C.S. §2702 (a)(l), as a felony of the first degree. On that same date Petitioner was sentenced to
twenty (20) to forty (40) years imprisonment for third degree murder; five (5) to ten (l 0) years
imprisonment, to nm consecutively, for the conspiracy conviction; and five (5) to ten (10) years,
10 run concurrently, for the aggravated assault conviction.
No post-sentence motion to withdraw the plea was tiled. No appeal to the Pennsylvania
Superior Court was filed. Therefore, judgment of sentence became final on January I, 2016.
On September 8, 20 l 6, Petitioner filed the instant, timely PCRA petition.
On November 16, 2016, Petitioner filed an amended petition.
On August 2, 2017, PCRA counsel filed a Finley letter of no merit.
On September 21, 2017, the Court rejected PCRA counsel's Finley letter and ordered a
hearing.
On December 18, 2017, a PCRA hearing was held, after which the Court denied PCRA
relief.
On January 12, 2018, Petitioner filed the instant appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior
Court.
On April 13, 2018, Petitioner filed a l 925(b) Statement of Matters Complained of on
Appeal, pursuant to an order of the Court, claiming:
I. The PCRA court erred in denying Petitioner's requested relief to reinstate
appellate rights nunc pro tune.
FACTS
On September 22, 2014, Petitioner and his friends were in search of a group of teenagers
who had engaged in an altercation with their friends a few days before. They encountered the
group and a fracas ensued which was broken up by Septa police officers. The group dispersed;
however, the confrontation resumed nearby and Petitioner took a .22 caliber firearm from the
back-pack of one of his friends and fired four (4) to five (5) shots into the crowd his group was
fighting. Bystanders, Donald Boseman and fifteen (15) year-old Aisha-Abdur Rahman, were
struck by the gunfire. Donald Boseman was struck two (2) times and survived. Aisha-Abdur
Rahman was struck one (1) time on her left side and was killed. Five (5) witnesses identified
Petitioner as the shooter (four of which knew him as a friend).
ANALYSIS
The PCRA Court set out its analysis and findings.of fact and law in full, on the record,
after the hearing. See N.T. 12/18/17 at pp. 114-133 (attached hereto as 'Exhibit A')
Therefore, the PCRA court did not err in denying Petitioner PCRA relief.
2
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court's denial of the PCRA petition should be affirmed.
By the Court:
3
EXHIBIT
'A'
51 CROO 134962014 Hearing Volume I
Dartan Person Deccm!Jcr 18, 2017
Page 113 Page 114
Cornmonwea,th vs. Person Commonwealth vs. Person
[1J Should Mr. Bowe have filed a motion to I [11 colloquy. There: was a written colloquy.
[ZJ withdraw the guilty pica? He had no I [2] Mr. Person is not someone who is
]
l31 duty to consult with his client after a (3) struggling under some sot! of mental
[4) full colloquy. You don't then [ {4l infirmity or incapacity. This was a
[51 immediately consult with your client. i [5) knowing and intelligent guilty plea.
[6) There is no such duty. Oh, by the way, j [6] The standard for granting
(71 did you change your mind? How many l [7] leave to withdraw the guilty plea after
[8] times do you ·;.
�.?L��L. ·-.:�\1��
'1�·· �� .....-,
-�2�!.... that mollOn. __ The Counhcard a rup·._:_=, .. ��d Ar,1��:1�r:,\hal this group_was·····---·-···· .. , ·····-··--· ·····
't!f .: n . '·.'i'"��:\Page·, 1:is{.t.L;_J), :� .< ••. ,-:•:11 •·• H \�,::·
: 1\'"}'°1·•,.,;,f1
�
Page 116
. .\i �, :,• l, -� \��-�:."' · ·:..·1!•,�t, �� ,!, ,': Commonwealth
t
I · • .-,:,.�
.·,t. . . : :-�t""'· - ."'11 . '
Commonwealth vs. Person 1 vs. Person
\ '-C '· \.
--�--: -,;,LA _ -�- • \. �_-:. '.
·.: .,t\�j:m::: �wh�
."• �J �.. "J • •t • } .... l.
rad_ geftrt!1�rc with him except a
1
lll looking for another group of young
people, who had been in an altercation , : :\ •.· .- . � y·
12i ,.·r2f:··\vainal)/wn.��Fmrted to grab the
[3l with some of their friends a few days · c-:::.11·[3] Defendarit aficr the shooting, and
[4) prior, that this group was walking I (4} identified him in a photo array.
[SJ around, that they came into contact with I [51 · The Defendant's claim in this
[6] another group of teenagers and that they I [61 PCRA, which the Court ordered a hearing
:
!71 began fighting, that that fight was [71 on, was that Trial Counsel abandoned the
[8] broken up by the SEPTA police, that, . (SJ Defendant by foiling lo file an appeal.
{Ill thereafter, the tight sparked 11p again ! (9) That was the claim and so that is the
[101 «� the other group followed the h,01 !
claim that was heard by this Court. .
[11) Defendant and his group from the area. j[11] Pursuant to Flores-Ortega and
112) At the point in which the j(12] Commonwealth versus Touw, the Defendant
(13] fight sparked up again, Quadir Gibson j(13] has a Constitutional right for Counsel
{14) yelled to the Defendant get the gar, get !114) to consult with the Defendant about an
[15] the gal and at that point, the Defendant !(15) appeal where Counsel has reason to
[16) took a .22 caliber weapon from the 1[ 16] believe either, one. that a rational
(17] backpack of one of the others and fired lr111
I
Defendant would want to appeal because
paJ four or five shots into the crowd of i[1Bl there are nonfrivolous grounds for
[IQ] individuals Iha! were lighting. Donald 1( 19) appeal or, two, that this particular
[20] Boseman was struck twice and survived, 1120] Defendant reasonably demonstrated to
[2l] Aisha Abdur-Rahman, a 15-year-old 11211 Counsel that he was interested in
[22) bystander, was struck in the left side 1r221 appealing.
(23) of the back and was kilted. At least 1(2J] Now there has been lots of
[241 five witnesses identified the Defendant j[24] testimony here today about this case and
[25) as the shooter. A II were his friends j!25] about what the Defendant did and did not
Kevin Flanagan, O.C.R Court Reporting System (page 113 -116)
S1CROOl34962014 H�aring Volume I
Darlan Person December 18, 2017
·-------- ···--·---
Page 117 Page 118
Commonwealth vs. Person Commonwealth vs. Person
111 want to do. The colloquy speaks for degree murder, as well as murder
[2] itself. lhis Court advised the generally? The District Attorney, yes,
{31 Defendant i11 very clear terms, by the Your Honor. Mr. Bowe, yes. The Court,
(4) way, about the sentence, that it was 25 if you were to go lo trial and evidence
[51 to 50 more than one time, I believe. came out during the course of the trial
[6l In particular, on page 24, the which could tend to prove that the
[71 Court. on the conspiracy charge, the murder was a first degree murder, then I
(81 sentence will be 5 to l O years to run would have to give the jury the law on
[91 consecutively, that means it starts when first degree murder and if they found
(101 tin; 20 ends. Making that sentence, 1(10] you guilty of tirsl degree murder, that
[11) total sentence 25 to 50 and the lf11l sentence is life without parole. l
[121 aggravated assault sentence will be 5 10 !1121 cannot change that as a Judge, and it
[131 10 years to nm concurrently. So that !L13J just goes on.
[ 111) just starts with the 20 to 40 and runs ![141 So going back to the issue
[ 15) at the same time. Do you understand :[15] here, this case was a first degree
that? The Defendant, yes. The Court, 1['16] murder case by all accounts. Mr. Bowe,
{16]
[HJ the total sentence being 25 to 50 years :-}171 an Attorney with 40 years experience,
[18] slate incarceration. Do you understand �\J/f;�.�l hundreds of trials, 50 capital cases,
\
[ 191 that? The Defendant, yes. The Court, • , .:: 'l1�h you might find one other attorney in
{20) page 25. line I 3, the Commonwealth has(;;;\--,. : ._.Ji�r.�
Philadclpl;ifw\o has done SO capital
,:z1J agreed, m exchange for your pica, not 1; \ /'-:_,;· • ,•;;-��-J[21], cases, one;cif 1h�1top attorneys in the
',2· 21 onlvJ do thevJ agree to a sentence of25 ·:·, ..:'·\}"-.-··:... .:.�:,:·-�·: i122i,f7-cihr�thatty�u\{.;ere lucky enough to have
... !
'f !. , ,, \ '-.J, .... , 1,.; � ., .. �•• ,,,
N. n ·.
1. ·,.
"" �
to 50 years. but they also agree that -.; ·J, ',:·. ·�·0:fl23] tbeeil appointed. That is whv the Judge
[23) ,�,. .., '""C."r\.•-· -�-·--'\. . . ·n---· ,'\-';. "'
[24] they would not proceed, and then the:;:.,.· I ·;.t;.;.;,:.I" \ \�. ·,:r--::.:\E�l;;}d1�n't·1·e,1_1\�v�.ytr..Bowe.
. 1 fi lr·', I .. ' ,.._, � ,,'>) ·,. '· ... ' ., .. ,,fl,
·���-�-f?U7��'.3:;l�
'il,.'
d ���}·,'.· ��1-,,:.. hi _c_a_
;,,t- \.
T1h(e,-�n�.c�zc.1� l_i_s
[251 __ Court says_�as he charge__ :;·r · es _
·-·v .tt'·�rJ"
'--<--.;\
.-+.,.!· ra
9el1:1'§'-:··s ';�?:�}_;-:-'.//<,:;'C(_)lnmot'iw�alth vs. Person
-.-\ ..
i . __ ,., • .... •• .:, .... , l
'\"
Commonwealth vs. Person '. j ,..,.-<. :�-
111 or unknowing. We went through on the',l,;_\ ,,x,. , --: .r:-. ,. ' �T1t:�·will-notcl1cet!he!p)ca unless he wants
(21 record. the Defendant did indicate at •
.�,-;.�;"!,
••
'..'• ;,:,f;·,��.._\.;:it21Z;-to?°g� rof;;}'d·;;S'\tii the plea.
- . • ,,./?.: .... �_ ... " (/ • :"!...-- ·�·)'-·�-,,......:
In
[31 vanous points during this plea that he ',;IFi3J response.TheDefendant says that he
(4] was not satisfied with the advice of ! [41 wants to proceed.
[SJ Counsel. He then spoke to Counsel. ! [Sl After the plea, the Defendant
i6J The Court then asked him ifhe ! (6) exercised his right of allocution and
(71 wished to continue with the plea. The i (7) said, quote, lo the family of the
[BJ Defendant indicated thal he did. The [ (81 decedent, I would like to say that l
[9] Court explained to the Defendant that he
J
(9] truly apologize for taking Aisha's life,
(iO] can go 10 trial, that the Cou11 was iPOJ that my intention was never to hurt
{ii) ready for trial, that the trial was 1111] Aisha in any kind of way. I made a very
[12] going to start on Monday. So obviously ll121 poor decision and I will be held
(13] 11 sounds I ike the plea was the week j(13] accountable for my actions, end quote.
[14] before maybe or the Friday of the week j(14] The Defendant claims he was
(151 before. iP5l forced to plead guilty because Counset
it16] did not investigate his case and that
(16) The Defendant's complaint was I
(171 that Mr. Bowe did not come up with some 1(17) had Counsel investigated his case, he
I
(18] kind of defense. The Court tel Is the !,[18] would have come up with a defense.
[19) Defendant, again, that he has the right (f19) The Defendant mentions today
(20] to go to trinl but that the Court will \(201 in his testimony that he wanted certain
I
\21] not remove Counsel because he is an jl21] motions filed. Those motions, the Court
{22) excellent auorncy, The Defendant talks 11221 asked him about, were, one, a motion to
{23) lo the attorney off the record and then \!23] suppress statements by other witnesses.
(24] says he is satisfied. The Court, again, ll24) There was no such thing and I understand
(25) says to the Defendant that the Court ![25] the Defendant doesn't know the law.
Kevin Flnnagnn, O.C.R Court Reporting System (page 121 · 124}
SICR00134962014 Hearing Volum« I
Da r ia n Person December 18, 2017
Page 125 ' Pago 126
Commonwealth vs. Person I Commonwealth vs. Person
Two, motion 10 sever, that would not i (1l he was prepared for, which this Coun
(21 have been granted in this case anyway I 121
I
credits that testimony that Mr. Flowe was
(:;) Just from the Court knowing the facts l [3J prepared for and prepared to do a trial.
[4) but. secondly, that would not have an '(4} Sometimes there is no
(5] issue. It was a non-issue. The I ISJ a ffirmativc defense, that is just the
codefendam was sent back to juvcni le
!
(6) I [6J way it is and although the Defendant may
(7] court. i (7) be unhappy with the situation he is
[81 The other claims that the I (OJ placed in, that four or five
(9) Defendant makes arc that I (9] eyewitnesses can directly testify that
(10} Miss Merriweather stated that part of !(101 they saw him commit the murder ancl that
ll 1] her statement was made up by the police. lr11J the District Attorney's Office, knowing
(12) Another witness denied her statement in 1(121 that he killed one person and shot
(1JJ its entirety. A witness failed to pick !(131 another, would not go below 25 years,
(14] petitioner out in a lineup, that Counsel i(1'1] but that is the reality of the
1[1!i)
(151 failed to investigate the inconsistent situation.
(16] statements of Deborah Scon and that 1(161 So, wilh regard to prejudice,
[17] Counsel failed to subpoena phone records . 1(17) to succeed in showing prejudice, the
. 'I
of the codefendant who claimed he had �\.. :. 1.\!ll Defendant must show that it is
4 ri\.,
(18]
l.;(1t_i
1
(19) phone contact with the Defendant prior reasonably probable that, hut for
_,.
120) 10 commission of the crime. which was /.' .,'� \. ·,: _ .11_?0}." Counsel's ;'!Or�:
he would not have
{21J not true: '.' · . . . .,,:., ·:�12·1). pleaded gu!\tyiand would have gone to
r�J:i.on:�ole
-1(22)��
(221 These were all impeachment, \;_', ;> .:·,,�:·,.11· �);.J'.,, tri:.i!:·, t:,.. probebitity is a
the .\ ;""'-
.:...:. -r· i-: ,,. , .,..� .., .... '-' ...... \.."'..... -il,
(23] basical!Y· �vidcnce, which would be .·.J-:-{:\ },;:: � ?V.Jr. ��� !lb.i)i!r;, �ymcient to undermine
l24J typ� o t ev1_t.lence '.hat would come �t�\:"· .'(: .. ··.:,.. r \.�·:·, ,·�t.-::.
(2f!t=i]f.orfidc{����!��·!�-o��corne ..
.::,-�.. t;:--:-�(25)··:PJ Cnor!-!�1;tto·s.at1sfy th1�
� ,�· . . --��·}\ "<;:_.-·---·-·. -·-··----··--·-···-----.
during a trial, which Mr. Bowe 1cs11ticdl,..';+ , · ?
128 ..
(251
"···--··-·-···-·····-···· --··----·--·" ·.i(- . .'j_.;; .. �. ..,,.�.
.
::� �
P�g�f?tffs;:
:tl.:.::,ti;-�z,-�,�,
,;fl!"' ...\.. " .i-.J."'t4 :··�;l !.._
Page
. ": , t ·,-;.:..;-:1f'.� ::· •:; • • Commonwealth vs. Person
4
Commonwealth vs. Person : .· .•
•••
ti. ,1 .&...• J ._
.\ ...,. ·· - I· (1l "� Catinsel-is a fa1h,rc lo advise the
. ' • ....• • ¥ ·;·,. e ,,, a./-. • ,,
{1J prejudice requirement, the Defendant" ·-:·:::�·., ':
[21 must show that there is a reasonable •: > ·�., •'.' :.· r· ··:l::. � :.:t/21�-"i.Def;�?an1Jt�}�tcntia1 affirmative
[3] probability that, but for Counsel's · ·.'e.:J;.[Jj' defense ti:i the crime charged, the
[4) errors, he would not have pleaded guilty I (4) resolution of the prejudice inquiry will
!SJ and would have insisted on going to J [SJ depend largely on whether the
(6] trial. ! (6) nffirmative defense likelv would have
17] When you look at this inquiry, ] (7) succeeded at trial. -
!8) basically, the Court is reviewing. it's j (81 There was no affirmative
(9) almosr as if it is an ineffective 1 (9) defense m this particular case, You
(10) assistance challenge. Where the alleged 1(10] have four to five eyewitnesses. They
(11] error of Counsel L� a failure to 11111 saw you there, So you didn't have
I
(1?.J investigate or discover potentially 11121 alibi. You didn't have self-defense
113] exculpatory evidence, the determination 1(13] because the other side, there is no
{14J whether the error prejudiced the 111'1) claim that anybody was armed and coming
[15) Defendant by causing him to plead guilty ![1s) after you at the time you pulled out a
[16] rather than go to trial will depend on :11s1 gun and shot two people.
{HJ the likelihood that the Discovery of the 1(17] So the only thing would be
1,(18]
(18] evidence would have led Counsel to that Counsel would try to have impeached
(19] change his rccormnendauon as to the ,(19J all of the witnesses against you. fl is
(20} pica. jr:!OJ really, really hard to impeach four
(21J This assessment, in turn, will 1(21) witnesses, who know you and identify you
1221 depend. in large part. on a prediction, 11221 as being with them and on the scene.
(23J whether the evidence likely would have 1(23) shooting a gun. So there is no
[241 changed the outcome of a trial. 1124] information thn1 this Defendant had
[25) Similarly. where the alleged error of ll25] brought out that Counsel failed to
Kevin Flanagan, O.C.H Court Reporting System (page 125 -128)
5 JCUOO 134962014 Hearing Volume I
Darian Person December 18, 2017
Page 129 Page 130
Commonwealth vs. Person Commonwealth vs. Person
j
f1 l investigate that would have led to this !Pl codefendant called the petitioner on a
('l) Defendant choosing not to plead guilty. : (2) recorded prison call and stated chat he
I
131 In the end. that is why this ; [3! falsely implicated the petitioner.
[4] Defendant did plead guilty because the l {4) for this evidence to qualify
[51 reality of the situation was thal this ' (5] as newly discovered evidence, it would
(6) lawyer's advice was solid and good
I
I {61 have to be discovered ajlcr trial, could
{7) advice and that had the Defendant gone i (7) 1101 have been discovered earlier rhrougb
[8] 10 trial. he most likely would be I 1s1 reasonable diligence. The Defendant
[9) serving a life sentence right now. ! [9] would have that one. Assuming it is
\101 There is another claim j(10) even true, we do11'1 even have it in here
[11) outstanding. So, therefore, this Co1111 1(1') in front ofus, but ii is a recantation
{12) finds that as to the second claim, that lc121 by a code fondant; is not cumulative ···
{131 Counsel induced the Defendant to plead !t13J it's cumulative but ii is by the
f14) guilty, that claim has no merit. 1 am ![14] codefendaru, so even if the De fondant
(15J not even going to get to the prejudice jc1s1 could get passed that, it is not being
[l61 part. It doesn't 1:vc11 have merit to l(16] used solely to impeach credibility,
strut off with. \1111 which it would be, and would likely
[ 171 •
[18} Lastly, the l)cfcndant raised i\;�J!!-�1 compel a different result, which it
(\91 the claim of newly discovered evidence l T,:J(!Jt,·, absolutely would not in this particular
[20} in his petition. There was no hearing ,: '.' .: . \. ''i- 'i[20] . : case because-there arc four
[211 on that but it needs to be decided on ,;, • : -�-� .;1
· · .· " - ..
·}r':;;Ji2:fj,
I / . ""'J ·
identiticati�n-)i�nesscs who know the
··'""'° .. s·
(22] the record. ,.., , · · .: :.r:•°'.. ·'.· � �;. :-/ 1 ·11221·�':. Defendant' wlio place him at the scene.
�,, • r • ·, I :!' i " >, '· ' ., . . '•i.-.., r·,' ·�"/- � �,.·
123) The Defendant claims that the • --..1 / • • J' 'l•r:··ll23) \1° '-:.,·Furthermore , recantations arc
,. ····•·'-.i1.•J.� ···� ·t··-a-�'). .· , -:-
12") codcfendant recanted his statement on'a ,.'"' _ ". ·. · /' --. } .·. ,- ·. !12�}� ·,'�otorici�-�i�.-unseli�blc, especially those .
(251 prison call on 10/2/16. that the /-:/:· \��� ; ; :�:-��-. �.;_-:·:i[25.h}�y. friends •. c:sp�l;i�liy one by .I
• •••••-••--------�-----·-- ------·�--· -. "�... �---·:' \ • �'.: .:- 4. ••• : . • :>�'.......)71:·. -:,:·;--:,t----• !.-�.i.�# �·: / ·::,.�. ---·-..-------·---. . -·- --··-••-•• �
.,_l1'�
H .. •-•--�� �;;t /t: {. C<:HJ?mo!'weallh vs. Person
...- .... , • •
Commonwealth vs. Person
(1] codefcndanl who was sent back to ··..·::
.... .,,. •
f·'\.i;.� '.�� '; 7:,::.. rr�r.:·,'.':,: . \•Jf.HE:pEfENOANT:
. . ._.,r�- ':*I,�. ;,,'<- � - 2 ,"'+ -tt.·'"'"'�-�
Yes.
(2) juvenile court and at the age of 21 is ; ·'> -. r-/·, "�'/)�t(.2iJ;;:--< 's:_�JH�!£�URT: I denied ii here.
Pl going to he out and no longer subject to ·.,,..fi3f So you have to go to the higher Court IO
(4) any kind of jurisdiction of the Court, l [4} say she is wrong, that Court shouldn't
[5] so who would lose! nothing hy recanting I (5) have denied it.
I
(6) his statement So, therefore, that I [6} Arc you going to continue to
[7) issue has no merit. J (7) represent him?
\A] This Court, finding that the I ra1
I
MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor,
(9] Defendant's issues have no merit, denies i (91 respectfully, I spoke to Mr. Person this
(10] the PCRA and formully dismisses it at i( \OJ morning. I explained 10 him the
I
1111 this time. i [11) scenario which could happen today and if
(12) You have thirty days to tile !1121 Your Honor would like, obviously I did
(13] an appeal to the. Superior Court \[13) file a Finley leuer but Your Honor has
( 14] regarding this dismissal and denial of ![14) not granted my motion to withdraw. In
psJ your PCRA. i[15J speaking to Mr. Person, he does wish to
{16) Do you understand that? I( 16) pursue an appeal in this case.
{171 THE DEFENDANT: No. 11111 THE COURT: That's tine. You
[1BJ THE COURT: You don't l11SJ understand the issues, Counsel. ff you
[19] understand that? !£19] feel you can't do it, that's fine, but
(20) THE DEFENDANT: No. ! 1201 you did represent him to the best of
{21) THE COURT: I just denied your lt?.1) your ability here and you know the
{22) PCRA, so you can file an appeal on my 1(221 ISSUCS.
[?.3] denial. That appeal has to be tiled !l23J MR. SCHULTZ: I spoke with Mr.
(24] with the Superior Court. 1124] Person and he asked me to continue, if [
[25] Do yuu understand that? 1(25] can. If Your Honor would allow, I will
--·------------
Kevin Fhrnagan, 0.C.R Court Reporting System (page 129 ·132)
SICH.00134962014 Hearing Volume I
Darian Person December 18, 2017
Page 133 Page 134
Commonwealth vs. Person ! Commonwealth vs. Person
(1) file a notice of appeal. I [1} proceedings were adjourned, at this
[21 THE COURT: I think that that ! [2]
I
rimc.)
[31 is fine. since you sat through this '. (3)
14) hearing, you know what the issues are, ; {4)
I
yon zealously represent him. i[SJ
i
[5j
(6] MR. SCHULTZ: I am familiar (6J
[7] with the case, as well, Your Honor, 1(71
(BJ THE COURT: That's fine. Your j[BJ
(91 Counsel wi II file an appeal on your ) (9)
(10) behalf. 1(1 OJ
[11! Do you understand that? : 111 J
[121 THE DEFENDANT: Yes. 11121
THE COURT: All right. 1(13}
[13]
1(1<1]
(14] MS. LABAR: Thank you, Your
[15] Honor. :(15]
\161 May I be excused? 1[16J
1(17}
THE COURT: Yes.
[HJ .. , .I
(1SJ MR. SGHU L TZ: May I be ; •. "j[1_8J
[19l excused. Your Honor? :· · \(1?J,
[20] THE COURT: Yes. =· . · • J'[20J ," ,.,·.. ,
\.. .� : : - . ..,_; : -..'-. ..4"�!, ;�, �
it,,��;·
[21) Thank you. ;,,,., -:-:--.. . ..,. , [2·1h. ·-:�! ;ji'l
MR. SCHULTZ: Thunk yon Yo�{ A:·-;�),· ,..'!·y '·jr:221 .t �-=-:··'.},._ .d.\('};.'tj:t_,i'
(22]
"'(V"' ': �· \t• �' �II\..�
··.r �1' \ ·,1::n·,1,-.
·�
t'