Com. v. Gettys, A. ( 2016 )

J. S30030/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
ANWAAR MALIK GETTYS, : No. 2494 EDA 2011
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the PCRA Order, August 11, 2011,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No. CP-23-CR-0004425-2005
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., AND JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 12, 2016
Anwaar Malik Gettys appeals from the order entered in the Court of
Common Pleas of Delaware County that dismissed his petition filed pursuant
to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546 (“PCRA”).
The PCRA court set forth the following:
After nearly a month of diligent investigation of
the disappearance of fifteen-year-old Deanna
Wright-McIntosh, police found her charred remains in
a barrel on December 30, 2004. This sorrowful
discovery prompted many other police actions
undertaken to establish what happened to the young
girl and, ultimately, who was responsible. The
investigation eventuated with the arrest of
[appellant] and another man, Lamar Haymes. They
were tried separately.
On or about January 5, 2005, [appellant] was
arrested and charged with tampering with physical
evidence, obstructing the administration of law,
hindering apprehension or prosecution, abuse of
J. S30030/16
corpse and criminal conspiracy. Then on July 21,
2005, [appellant] was rearrested and charged with
the aforementioned crimes and with additional
crimes including: criminal homicide; kidnapping;
unlawful restraint; false imprisonment; rape;
statutory sexual assault; and involuntary deviate
sexual intercourse. A criminal complaint and
affidavit of probable cause requesting issuance of an
arrest warrant for [appellant] were signed by
Detective Mike Palmer of the Delaware County
District Attorney’s Criminal Investigation Division and
Sergeant D. Donegan of the Lansdowne Police
Department. Magisterial District Judge John J.
Perfetti notarized the Affidavit and then executed the
arrest warrant as the issuing authority. Haymes was
also charged in the death of Deanna Wright-
McIntosh.
During the four-day trial, the jury was offered
evidence of the deliberate deceits of [appellant] and
testimony regarding his apparent opportunity for
wrongdoing. Additional information regarding the
grisly disposition of the missing girl and evidence
establishing that body parts found in a barrel were
those of the victim was presented. The jury also
heard testimony that afforded them insight into her
presence at [appellant’s] mother’s residence before
her death and other events thereafter. The
Commonwealth’s case painted a picture that fully
supported the jury’s decision in finding [appellant]
guilty of first degree murder [18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 2502(a)] and abuse of a corpse [18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 5510] and that [appellant] perpetrated the death
and participated in the disposal of the victim’s body.
PCRA court opinion, 12/19/11 at 1-2.
On November 30, 2006, [appellant] was
sentenced by this Court to serve a term of life
imprisonment plus one to two years for his
conviction of first degree murder and abuse of a
corpse. [Appellant’s] direct appeal offered him no
satisfaction. The Superior Court issued an
exhaustive Memorandum Opinion on March 13, 2009
-2-
J. S30030/16
(No. 1278 EDA 2007) addressing the issues raised
on appeal. Given this outcome, [appellant] resorted
to his sole avenue of solace and he timely filed a
pro se PCRA petition containing various allegations
of ineffective assistance of counsel and other
irregularities which supposedly would . . . justify
court intervention and relief. Counsel was appointed
to assist [appellant] in this process.
On June 28, 2010, that attorney, Steven D.
Molineux, submitted a Turner/Finley[1] letter,
carefully explaining his scrupulous review of the case
and the applicable law and his assessment that
further pursuit of PCRA relief could not be properly
justified. Mr. Molineux’s submission also sought an
opportunity to withdraw his appearance.
This court has a vivid recollection of this case
but, nevertheless, undertook the requisite
independent review of the PCRA petition and the
case itself. Having discerned no true issues which
would lead us to believe that [appellant’s] trial was
somehow tainted such as to require further PCRA
consideration, we offered notice to [appellant] of our
intention to dismiss the PCRA petition and to allow
counsel’s withdrawal. Ultimately[,] we issued an
Order dismissing the PCRA from which this appeal
was taken.
Id. at 3-4 (footnote omitted).
Appellant raises the following issues for this court’s review:
1. Did the Court of Common Plea [sic] error [sic]
by finding that the Commonwealth presented
sufficient evidence to support a verdict of
guilty for the crimes [sic] of Murder First
Degree?
2. Whether the verdict of first degree murder was
against the weight of the evidence?
1
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth
v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. 1988).
-3-
J. S30030/16
Appellant’s brief at 2.
In PCRA appeals, our scope of review “is limited to the findings of the
PCRA court and the evidence on the record of the PCRA court’s hearing,
viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.”
Commonwealth v. Sam, 952 A.2d 565, 573 (Pa. 2008) (internal quotation
omitted). Because most PCRA appeals involve questions of fact and law, we
employ a mixed standard of review. Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d
875, 878 (Pa. 2009). We defer to the PCRA court’s factual findings and
credibility determinations supported by the record. Commonwealth v.
Henkel, 90 A.3d 16, 20 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc). In contrast, we
review the PCRA court’s legal conclusions de novo. Id.To be eligible for PCRA relief, a petitioner must show, among other
things, that the claims of error have not been previously litigated.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(3). An issue has been previously litigated if “the
highest appellate court in which the petitioner could have had review as a
matter of right has ruled on the merits of the issue.” Id.; Commonwealth
v. Spotz, 47 A.3d 63, 76 (Pa. 2012).
In the two issues raised before this court, appellant contends that
evidence brought by the Commonwealth was insufficient to support a verdict
of guilty of first degree murder and that the verdict of guilty of first degree
murder was against the weight of the evidence. Appellant raised these
-4-
J. S30030/16
issues in his direct appeal.2 See Commonwealth v. Gettys, No. 1278 EDA
2007, unpublished memorandum (Pa.Super. filed March 13, 2009). In the
direct appeal, this court ruled that appellant’s argument regarding the
sufficiency of the evidence was wholly inadequate because it failed to
identify any specific point where the evidence was insufficient. Regarding
the weight of the evidence, this court determined that that claim was
abandoned because appellant did not present any argument on that issue.
Additionally, this court noted that even if we were to consider these issues,
we agreed with the trial court that the claims lacked merit. Id. at 16-17.
Where a decision rests on two or more grounds that are equally valid,
neither one may be relegated to the status of obiter dicta.
Commonwealth v. Reed, 971 A.2d 1216, 1220 (Pa. 2009). Therefore,
because these issues were previously litigated, they are not properly before
us.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/12/2016
2
From a review of appellant’s counselled brief on appeal, it appears that
counsel believes this is a direct appeal. No allegation of the ineffectiveness
of trial or appellate counsel is alleged.
-5-