Opinion
J-S45008-19 No. 1539 EDA 2018
10-21-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. SHARIF MYRICK, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 24, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002987-2010 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Sharif Myrick, appeals from the post-conviction court's April 24, 2018 order denying his first, timely petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
The PCRA court summarized the facts of this case in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, and we need not reiterate them herein. See PCRA Court Opinion, 12/11/18, at 2-3. We only briefly note that Appellant was convicted in May of 2011 of first-degree murder and related offenses, for which he received an aggregate sentence of life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole. This Court affirmed his judgment of sentence on direct appeal, and our Supreme Court denied his subsequent petition for allowance of appeal. See Commonwealth v. Myrick , 118 A.3d 449 (Pa. Super. 2015) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 116 A.3d 604 (Pa. 2015).
On September 23, 2015, Appellant filed the pro se PCRA petition underlying the present appeal. Counsel was appointed, and he filed an amended petition on Appellant's behalf. On March 26, 2018, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to dismiss Appellant's petition without a hearing. Appellant did not respond, and on April 24, 2018, the court dismissed his petition.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and he also complied with the court's order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Herein, he raises one issue for our review: "Did the PCRA [c]ourt err when it dismissed the [a]mended [p]etition, without holding an evidentiary hearing, even though []Appellant pled, and would have been able to prove, that he was entitled to relief?" Appellant's Brief at 3.
Initially, we note that:
"In reviewing the propriety of an order granting or denying PCRA relief, an appellate court is limited to ascertaining whether the record supports the determination of the PCRA court and whether the ruling is free of legal error." Commonwealth v. Johnson , ... 966 A.2d 523, 532 ([Pa.] 2009). We pay great deference to the findings of the PCRA court, "but its legal determinations are subject to our plenary review." Id.Commonwealth v. Matias , 63 A.3d 807, 810 (Pa. Super. 2013).
While Appellant sets forth only one issue in his Statement of the Questions Presented, his Argument section encompasses two distinct claims: (1) that his trial counsel acted ineffectively by not investigating, and calling to the stand, Maalik Gleaves, who would have testified that Appellant acted in self-defense; and (2) that he has discovered new evidence of a second eye-witness to the crime, Khareem Little, who also would have testified that Appellant killed the victim in self-defense. In assessing these issues, we have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law. Additionally, we have considered the thorough and well-crafted opinion of the Honorable Gwendolyn N. Bright of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. We conclude that Judge Bright's well-reasoned opinion accurately disposes of the issues presented by Appellant. Accordingly, we adopt her opinion as our own and affirm the order dismissing Appellant's petition for the reasons set forth therein.
We note that Judge Bright's decision addresses the issues raised in Appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement, which were stated slightly differently than how he presents them in his appellate brief. For instance, in his concise statement, Appellant framed each issue as pertaining to both Gleaves and Little, arguing that that his counsel ineffectively failed to call each man to the stand. He also asserted that both men's proposed testimony constitutes after-discovered evidence. However, on appeal, Appellant focuses only on Gleaves in regard to his ineffectiveness claim, and only on Little in his after-discovered-evidence issue. Notwithstanding Appellant's attempt to recast his claims on appeal, his arguments are meritless for the reasons set forth in Judge Bright's opinion. --------
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/21/19
Image materials not available for display.