J-S37020-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DERRICK DAVIS,
Appellant No. 2045 EDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order June 27, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006649-2007, Nos. CP-51-CR-
0006712-2007
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, and LAZARUS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED AUGUST 27, 2015
Derrick Davis (“Appellant”) appeals from the order denying his petition
for collateral relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”),
42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
On direct appeal, a panel of this Court summarized the underlying
facts and procedural history of this case as follows:
On March 12, 2007, [Appellant] was arrested and charged
in connection with the October [4], 200[3] shooting death of
Terr[a]nce Barron (“Barron”) and the August 5, 2006 shooting of
William Flournoy (“Flournoy”), the only eyewitness to Barron’s
murder. [Appellant] filed a motion to suppress Flournoy’s
identification of him as the shooter in both incidents, and after
holding an evidentiary hearing the trial court denied the motion.
On January 26, 2009, [Appellant] and Christopher Willis, his
alleged co-conspirator in Barron’s death, were tried as co-
J-S37020-15
defendants at a jury trial. The jury convicted [Appellant] of the
above-referenced crimes.[1]
On August 12, 2009, [Appellant] received the following
concurrent sentences: life in prison (for first degree murder),
10–20 years of incarceration (for conspiracy), 10–20 years of
incarceration (for attempted murder), 1–2 years of incarceration
(for retaliation against a witness), 5–10 years of incarceration
(for intimidating a witness), and 1–2 years of incarceration (for
each of two counts of possession of an instrument of crime). He
received no further penalty for aggravated assault and for
recklessly endangering another person.
Commonwealth v. Davis, 17 A.3d 390, 393 (Pa. Super. 2011).2 That
panel affirmed the judgment of sentence, id. at 399, and the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Davis, 29
A.3d 371 (Pa. 2011).
Appellant filed the instant PCRA petition on July 26, 2012. The PCRA
court filed a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice on May 16, 2014, advising Appellant of
its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing, and then formally denied
relief on June 27, 2014. This timely appeal followed. Appellant and the
PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
On appeal, Appellant presents the following questions for our
consideration:
____________________________________________
1
Co-defendant Christopher Willis was also convicted and filed an appeal at
1695 EDA 2014.
2
For a detailed recitation of the facts underlying the murder of Terrance
Barron see this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Willis, 2772 EDA
2009, 23 A.3d 1079 (Pa. Super. filed January 11, 2011) (unpublished
memorandum at 1–3).
-2-
J-S37020-15
I. Did the trial court err in denying relief where the
prosecutor referred to [A]ppellant during closing argument
as an “enforcer” and stated that the victim’s murder was
“drug-related” when there was no evidence to support
either of those claims?
II. Did the trial court err in failing to conduct an evidentiary
hearing on [A]ppellant’s claim that trial counsel was
prejudicially ineffective when he failed to object to the
prosecutor’s “enforcer” and “drug-related murder”
statements during closing argument?
III. Did the trial court err when it concluded that the United
States Supreme Court’s holding in Miller v. Alabama, 132
S.Ct. 2455 (2012) that it is unconstitutional to sentence a
defendant who was a juvenile at the time he committed a
murder to life imprisonment without the possibility of
parole does not apply retroactively to cases in which the
defendant’s conviction became final before Miller was
decided?
Appellant’s Brief at 1–2.
When reviewing the propriety of an order denying PCRA relief, this
Court is limited to determining whether the evidence of record supports the
conclusions of the PCRA court and whether the ruling is free of legal error.
Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177, 1183 (Pa. Super. 2012). We
grant great deference to the PCRA court’s findings that are supported in the
record and will not disturb them unless they have no support in the certified
record. Commonwealth v. Rigg, 84 A.3d 1080, 1084 (Pa. Super. 2014).
In order to obtain collateral relief, a PCRA petitioner must establish by
a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction or sentence resulted
from one or more of the circumstances enumerated in 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 9543(a)(2). Instantly, Appellant claims ineffective assistance of counsel
-3-
J-S37020-15
(“IAC”) pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(ii).3 To plead and prove IAC, a
petitioner must establish: (1) that the underlying issue has arguable merit;
(2) counsel’s actions lacked an objective reasonable basis; and (3) actual
prejudice resulted from counsel’s act or failure to act. Rykard, 55 A.3d
1177, 1189–1190 (Pa. Super. 2012). A claim of ineffectiveness will be
denied if the petitioner’s evidence fails to meet any one of these prongs.
Commonwealth v. Martin, 5 A.3d 177, 183 (Pa. 2010). We reiterate that
counsel’s representation is presumed to have been effective, unless the
petitioner proves otherwise. Commonwealth v. Williams, 732 A.2d 1167,
1177 (Pa. 1999). Further, we have explained that trial counsel cannot be
deemed ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless claim. Commonwealth
v. Loner, 836 A.2d 125, 132 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc).
Appellant argues that counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the
prosecutor’s inappropriate reference to Appellant as “an enforcer” and
characterization of the crime as a “drug-related murder.” Appellant’s Brief
at 8. According to Appellant, “there was no evidence presented at trial that
____________________________________________
3
Additionally, we note that Appellant combines his discussion of the first
two issues in his appellate brief. This violates Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), which
provides as follows: “The argument shall be divided into as many parts as
there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part--in
distinctive type or in type distinctively displayed--the particular point treated
therein, followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are
deemed pertinent.” Nonetheless, because our appellate review is not
hampered, we shall address Appellant’s first two issues.
-4-
J-S37020-15
the victim’s murder had anything to do with the illegal narcotics business
much less proof that [A]ppellant was an ‘enforcer’ for his co-defendant.” Id.
Prosecutorial misconduct does not occur unless the unavoidable effect
of the comments at issue is to prejudice the jurors by forming in their minds
a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant, thus impeding their ability to
weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict. Commonwealth
v. Riggle, 2015 PA Super 147, ___ A.3d ___ (Pa. Super. filed July 7, 2015)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 727–728 (Pa. 2013)). A
“prosecutor must be free to present his or her arguments with logical force
and vigor.” Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111, 1146 (Pa. 2011)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Robinson, 864 A.2d 460, 517 (Pa. 2004)).
Pennsylvania courts have permitted prosecutorial advocacy “as long as there
is a reasonable basis in the record for the [prosecutor’s] comments.”
Robinson, 864 A.2d at 516. “Prosecutorial comments based on the
evidence or reasonable inferences therefrom are not objectionable, nor are
comments that merely constitute oratorical flair.” Chmiel, 30 A.3d at 1145
(citation omitted). Furthermore, the prosecution must be permitted to
respond to defense counsel’s arguments. Id. Any challenged prosecutorial
comment must not be viewed in isolation, but rather must be considered
in the context in which it was offered. Robinson, 864 A.2d at 517
(emphasis supplied).
-5-
J-S37020-15
Applying the above legal standards, the PCRA court addressed the
prosecutor’s “enforcer” reference as follows:
It is clear that the prosecution’s closing remarks were reasonably
based on the record from this trial and did not merit a
mistrial. . . . On October 4, 2003, William Flournoy was present
during the murder of Terrance Barron, as they shared a home
together along with the victim’s then girlfriend, Valerie Ware.
During the investigation of this murder and the subsequent
trial[,] William Flournoy identified the Appellant and [co-
defendant] Christopher Willis as the individuals that murdered
Terrance Barron.
On March 31, 2005, William Flournoy testified at a
preliminary hearing as a Commonwealth witness against
Christopher Willis. Subsequently, on July 14, 2006 William
Flournoy resided with his elderly parents on Paschall Avenue and
was visited by the Appellant. At trial William Flournoy testified
that his doorbell rang at approximately 11:30 p.m. William
Flournoy opened the door and stated, “I saw a young black male
standing outside with a pizza box in his hand.” Then, William
Flournoy told the individual the pizza was not for him and closed
the door. A few moments later, William Flournoy’s doorbell rings
again and the same individual was standing in his doorway. The
witness testified that “it registered that was the guy in the house
that I saw the night Terry was murdered . . . he was holding the
pizza box with one hand like this and he had – I would say he
had his gun in his right hand under the pizza box.” The
Appellant locked eyes with William Flournoy and fired his gun.
William Flournoy “ducked” in order to not be shot and the bullet
went through the screen door and up into the ceiling. William
Flournoy looked out the peep hole of his door and watched the
Appellant get into a green car and speed away. William Flournoy
never reported this incident to the police because he did not
want his elderly parents to live in fear that they could be
attacked in their home.
This was not the Appellant’s only attempt to kill William
Flournoy. On August 5, 2006 at approximately 12:05 am
William Flournoy was returning from a local deli, riding his bike
home when he noticed a green car coming around the bend.
William Flournoy testified that he saw the Appellant “jump out of
his car and had his hands on his hip.” The victim attempted to
-6-
J-S37020-15
flee into a vacant lot near his home but could not manage to
escape being shot by the Appellant. William Flournoy testified at
this trial and stated, “I heard the shot ring out. The shot came
in my chest, traveled up – actually came in my lower stomach,
traveled up, came out my chest, went up, broke my jaw, and
shattered my teeth.” William Flournoy was treated for his
injuries at the University of Pennsylvania Hospital for several
days, was questioned by police in reference to this shooting, and
told the police “that he was a witness for a murder and he was
shot by one of the people that he knows murdered Terry.” On
January 31, 2007, after being shown photos by detectives,
William Flournoy, identified the Appellant as the individual who
attempted to kill him and as one of Terrance Barron’s
murderers. . . .
* * *
When viewing this case as a whole, the evidence and testimony
presented at this trial indicate that the Appellant acted as an
enforcer when viewing the term in even its most elementary
form. At trial, the witness and subsequent victim William
Flournoy identified the Appellant not only as the individual that
participated in the murder of Terrance Barron but also as the
individual that attempted to kill him.
PCRA Court Opinion, 9/10/14, at 5–7 (footnotes omitted).
Our review of the record supports the PCRA court’s findings regarding
the prosecutor’s reference to Appellant as an “enforcer.” N.T., 1/28/09, at
16–17; N.T., 1/29/09, at 40–41. Additionally, the record indicates that,
during the murder, Flournoy heard Appellant direct co-defendant Willis,
“Pass me the gun.” N.T., 1/28/09, at 11, 19–21. Flournoy then saw Willis
pass Appellant the gun, and Appellant “shot the gun into the ground.” Id.
Such evidence further supports the prosecutor’s inference that Appellant
played the role of enforcer.
-7-
J-S37020-15
With regard to the prosecutor’s comment that this was a drug-related
crime, the record contains evidence supporting such an inference.
William Flournoy testified that he used crack cocaine and had purchased it
from co-defendant Willis on numerous occasions. N.T., 1/28/09, at 15–17;
N.T., 1/29/09, at 40–41. Terrance Barron also used drugs and had cocaine
in his system when he was shot. N.T., 1/26/09, at 71; N.T., 1/28/09, at 17.
We agree with the Commonwealth’s assertion that the cases Appellant
relies on in support of his position are distinguishable because “they involve
comments of a very different quantity and quality.” Commonwealth’s Brief
at 15. Unlike Appellant’s cases, the prosecutor herein made one passing
reference to this being a drug-related case and to Appellant being an
enforcer. These comments were reasonable inferences drawn from the
evidence adduced at trial and not likely to have the unavoidable effect of
prejudicing the jurors by forming in their minds a fixed bias and hostility
toward Appellant, thus impeding their ability to weigh the evidence
objectively and render a true verdict. Riggle, 2015 PA Super 147. In light
of the record at hand, we conclude that Appellant’s underlying claim lacks
merit. Therefore, his derivative IAC claim does not warrant relief.
Having argued that the underlying claim has merit, Appellant invites
us to remand for an evidentiary hearing “[t]o the extent that this Court
believes that there is a question of fact” regarding whether counsel had a
rational basis for not objecting to the prosecutor’s offensive closing remarks.
-8-
J-S37020-15
Appellant’s Brief at 9. We decline Appellant’s invitation. The right to an
evidentiary hearing on a PCRA petition is not absolute, and the PCRA court
may decline to hold a hearing if the petitioner’s claims are patently frivolous
with no support in either the record or other evidence. Commonwealth v.
Walls, 993 A.2d 289 (Pa. Super. 2010); Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. See also
Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903, 906 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“There is
no absolute right to an evidentiary hearing on a PCRA petition, and if the
PCRA court can determine from the record that no genuine issues of material
fact exist, then a hearing is not necessary.”). Having found no support in
the record for Appellant’s IAC claim, we further find no abuse of discretion
by the PCRA court in dismissing Appellant’s petition without a hearing.
Thus, Appellant’s second issue does not warrant relief.
Lastly, Appellant challenges his sentence of life without parole as
unconstitutional pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct.
2455 (2012). In Miller, the United States Supreme Court held that a
mandatory life sentence without parole imposed on a defendant under the
age of eighteen at the time of his crime violates the Eighth Amendment
prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Our Pennsylvania Supreme
Court has held that the Miller Court did not, itself, give retroactive effect to
the new rule it announced, and Miller is not otherwise retroactive under the
-9-
J-S37020-15
first Teague4 exception. Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 81 A.3d 1 (Pa.
2013), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 2724 (2014). We are bound by
the decisions of our Supreme Court and, therefore, our decision herein is
controlled by this statement of the law.
Appellant informally requests that we “stay our hand” on appeal until
the United States Supreme Court reaches a decision regarding the
retroactivity of Miller in State v. Toca, 141 So.3d 265 (La. 2014), cert.
granted, Toca v. Louisiana,___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 781 (2014), cert.
dismissed, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 1197 (2015). Appellant’s Brief at 10.
We note, however, that the writ of certiorari granted in part in Toca was
dismissed upon written agreement of the parties under Supreme Court Rule
46(1) on February 3, 2015. On March 23, 2015, the Supreme Court granted
certiorari in State v. Montgomery, 141 So.3d 264 (La. 2014), cert.
granted, Montgomery v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 1546 (2015),
which also presents the Miller retroactivity question. Until the United States
Supreme Court issues a contrary decision, Cunningham remains the final
____________________________________________
4
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989). The Teague Court “delineated a
general rule of non-retroactivity for new procedural, constitutional rules
announced by the Court, . . . subject to two narrow exceptions. . . . The
exceptions extend to “rules prohibiting a certain category of punishment for
a class of defendants because of their status or offense,” and “watershed
rules of criminal procedure implicating the fundamental fairness and
accuracy of the criminal proceeding.” Cunningham, 81 A.3d at 4–5.
- 10 -
J-S37020-15
word in Pennsylvania on the issue of Miller’s retroactivity, and it does not
afford Appellant relief from his life sentence.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/27/2015
- 11 -
Com. v. Davis, D.
Combined Opinion