Com. v. Brown, M. ( 2023 )

J-S04039-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MARTIN B. BROWN :
:
Appellant : No. 1427 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 29, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0003080-2011
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MARTIN B. BROWN :
:
Appellant : No. 1428 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 29, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0004214-2013
BEFORE: MURRAY, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 24, 2023
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S04039-23
Martin B. Brown (Brown) appeals1 from the April 29, 2022 order of the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (PCRA court) dismissing
without a hearing his second petition filed pursuant to the Post-Conviction
Relief Act (PCRA).2 We affirm.
We set forth the facts of Brown’s offenses in detail in his direct appeal.
See Commonwealth v. Brown, 57 EDA 2015 & 686 EDA 2015, at *2-4 (Pa.
Super. Feb. 19, 2016) (unpublished memorandum). Briefly, in January 2011,
Brown attended a cabaret with several friends, including the victim, Clyde
Raynor (Raynor). Brown and Raynor began arguing while Brown was driving
the group home after the show. Brown pulled the car over to the side of the
road and he and Raynor continued their argument outside. The interaction
became physical and Brown retrieved a firearm from the trunk of the car and
shot Raynor once in the chest before fleeing the scene. Raynor was paralyzed
from the waist down and spent the remainder of his life in the hospital and
various care facilities before he ultimately died as a result of the gunshot
wound in May 2012.
____________________________________________
1Brown filed identical notices of appeal at each docket number in compliance
with Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018). See
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 236 A.3d 1141, 1148, (Pa. Super. 2020) (en
banc) (approving the filing of separate but identical notices of appeal as
compliant with the dictates of Walker, supra).
2 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541 et seq.
-2-
J-S04039-23
Brown proceeded to a consolidated jury trial at the two above-captioned
dockets. In Case 4214-2013, he was convicted of one count of third-degree
murder.3 In Case 3080-2011, he was convicted of possession of a firearm by
a prohibited person, carrying a firearm without a license, carrying a firearm
on a public street in Philadelphia, and possessing an instrument of crime. 4
The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 30 years to 60 years in
prison. He timely appealed and this Court affirmed the judgement of
sentence. Id. at *21. Brown filed a timely first PCRA petition, which the PCRA
court denied without a hearing, and this Court affirmed on the basis of waiver.
Commonwealth v. Brown, 2794 EDA 2019 & 2795 EDA 2019, at *6 (Pa.
Super. Sept. 11, 2020) (unpublished memorandum).
Brown filed the instant petition on August 10, 2021 arguing, inter alia,
that the financial settlement the victim’s family reached with his care providers
after his death was after-discovered evidence that would have proven that the
gunshot wound was not the victim’s true cause of death. The PCRA court
concluded that the petition was untimely and that he had not pled a valid
exception pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b). Accordingly, it dismissed the
____________________________________________
3 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(c).
4 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105(a)(1), 6106(a)(1), 6108 & 907(a).
-3-
J-S04039-23
petition without an evidentiary hearing. Brown timely appealed and he and
the PCRA court have complied with Pa. R.A.P. 1925.5
While Brown’s argument is convoluted and difficult to discern, we
identify the following claims of error: (1) whether the settlement the victim’s
family received in a negligence action following Raynor’s death was after-
discovered evidence that would have raised reasonable doubt as to whether
Brown’s conduct caused Raynor’s death; (2) whether the Commonwealth
violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), in offering perjured
testimony at trial; (3) whether prior PCRA counsel was ineffective; and (4)
whether the Commonwealth violated Brady, supra, by failing to disclose any
statements about the shooting made by Raynor before his death.
Brown has pled a single exception to the jurisdictional time-bar: he
contends that his petition is timely based on the newly-discovered fact that
the victim’s family obtained a settlement in a negligence, wrongful death and
____________________________________________
5 Whether a PCRA petition is timely filed is a question of law over which our
standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 468 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations
omitted). “The standard of review of an order dismissing a PCRA petition is
whether that determination is supported by the evidence of record and is free
of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Weimer, 167 A.3d 78, 81 (Pa. Super.
2017). “[A] PCRA court has discretion to dismiss a PCRA petition without a
hearing if the court is satisfied that there are no genuine issues concerning
any material fact; that the defendant is not entitled to post-conviction
collateral relief; and that no legitimate purpose would be served by further
proceedings.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 161 A.3d 960, 964 (Pa. Super.
2017) (citations omitted).
-4-
J-S04039-23
survival action against Raynor’s care providers. He pled that he learned of
this settlement when a family member saw a television commercial featuring
the victim’s sister. In the ad, Raynor’s sister stated, “it’s not going to bring
my brother back, but they got us a nice settlement.” See Brown’s Brief at 8.
He argues that the actual cause of Raynor’s death was medical malpractice
that led to complications in his treatment and contends that he filed the instant
petition within one year of learning about the commercial.
“A PCRA petition, including a second and subsequent petition, shall be
filed within one year of the date the underlying judgment becomes final.”
Commonwealth v. Graves, 197 A.3d 1182, 1185 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation
omitted); see also 42 Pa.C.S. 9545(b)(1). “[A] judgment becomes final at
the conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme
Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the
expiration of time for seeking the review.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3). Because
the timeliness requirements of the PCRA are jurisdictional, no court may
consider the merits of an untimely petition. Commonwealth v. Small, 238
A.3d 1267, 1280 (Pa. 2020).
Brown’s sentence became final in 2016 when this Court affirmed the
judgment of sentence on direct appeal and he declined to seek further review.
42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3). Because he did not file the instant petition until
2021, his petition is facially untimely and he must plead and prove one of the
exceptions to the PCRA’s timeliness requirements: that he was prevented
-5-
J-S04039-23
from raising the claim earlier by government interference; that the claim is
based on newly-discovered facts that could not have been ascertained earlier;
or that the claim is predicated on a newly-recognized constitutional right. 42
Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). In addition, the petitioner invoking a time-bar
exception must file the petition raising the claimed exception within one year
of the date the claim could have been presented. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2).
On appeal, Brown asserts that his petition is timely under the exception
for newly-discovered facts. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii). The newly-
discovered facts exception “does not require any merits analysis of the
underlying claim.” Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221, 227 (Pa. 2016)
(internal quotations and citation omitted). To establish timeliness pursuant
to the newly-discovered facts exception, “the petitioner must establish only
that (1) the facts upon which the claim was predicated were unknown, and
(2) they could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.”
Id.The PCRA court determined that Brown had not adequately pled the
newly-discovered facts exception because his petition did not reveal when he
learned about the settlement. As a result, he did not establish that he had
filed the petition within one year of the time the claim could have been
presented. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2). Our review of the record reveals
that Brown filed his first PCRA petition in 2016, it was dismissed on August
-6-
J-S04039-23
23, 2019, and this Court affirmed the dismissal on September 11, 2020.6 A
PCRA court lacks jurisdiction to consider a subsequent petition if a previously-
filed petition is pending on appeal. Commonwealth v. Beatty, 207 A.3d
957, 961 (Pa. Super. 2019). “Where a prior petition is pending on appeal, a
subsequent petition must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section
9545(b)(2) as measured from the date of the order that finally resolves the
appeal in the prior petition, because that date is the first date the claim could
be presented.” Id. at 963. However, PCRA courts do not lack jurisdiction to
consider multiple petitions at the same time when no petition is pending on
appeal. Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 181 A.3d 359, 364-65 (Pa. Super.
2018) (en banc).
Here, Brown filed his second petition alleging newly-discovered facts
within one year of when we affirmed the dismissal of his first PCRA petition.
Thus, the timeliness hinges on whether he learned of the civil suit and
settlement before filing his prior PCRA notice of appeal in September 2019,
Montgomery, supra, or after it was already pending on appeal, Beatty,
supra. As the petitioner, Brown bears the burden of establishing that he
brought his claim in a timely manner and was required to include in his
pleading the date, or approximate date, when he learned this new information.
____________________________________________
6The documentation Brown attached to his petition reveals that the civil suit
was filed in 2013 and the settlement was reached in 2015.
-7-
J-S04039-23
Because he did not include the relevant dates in his petition, he has failed to
meet his burden and his petition is untimely.7
Nevertheless, we agree with the PCRA court that this claim is
substantively meritless. See PCRA Court Opinion, 7/21/22, at 8 n.3. Brown
contends that the victim’s death was caused by medical negligence in the care
he received after he sustained his gunshot wound. We have previously set
forth a two-part test for determining causation:
First, the defendant’s conduct must be an antecedent, but for
which the result in question would not have occurred. A victim’s
death cannot be entirely attributable to other factors; rather,
there must exist a “causal connection between the conduct and
the result of conduct; and causal connection requires something
more than mere coincidence as to time and place.” Second, the
results of the defendant’s actions cannot be so extraordinarily
remote or attenuated that it would be unfair to hold the defendant
criminally responsible.
As to the first part of the test, the defendant’s conduct need not
be the only cause of the victim’s death in order to establish a
causal connection. “Criminal responsibility may be properly
assessed against an individual whose conduct was a direct and
____________________________________________
7 The Commonwealth argued in the PCRA court that Brown’s petition was
untimely but, on appeal, contends that he met the requirements of the newly-
discovered facts exception because he asserts in his brief that he learned
about the settlement on or about March 1, 2021. See Commonwealth’s Brief
at 9 (citing Brown’s Brief at 12). However, Brown did not plead this date in
his initial petition. Moreover, the petition belies this claim, as a letter he
attached to his petition from prior PCRA counsel dated March 1, 2021,
references the civil settlement information. See PCRA Petition, 8/10/21,
Exhibit 1 (“I also want you to understand that the information that you’ve
forwarded to us concerning the civil matter certainly is of the utmost
importance.”). Thus, it is clear that Brown learned about the settlement prior
to March 1, 2021, but we are unable to determine a more precise date based
on the record before us.
-8-
J-S04039-23
substantial factor in producing the death even though other
factors combined with that conduct to achieve the result.” The
second part of the test is satisfied when the victim’s death is the
natural or foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s actions.
Commonwealth v. Nunn, 947 A.2d 756, 760 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations
omitted); see also 18 Pa.C.S. § 303(a)(1).
Here, the victim lived for approximately 16 months after Brown shot
him, spending that time in hospitals and care facilities. Chief Medical
Examiner Dr. Samuel Gulino testified at trial that he had reviewed all of the
victim’s medical records from the day of the shooting through his death. The
gunshot wound had paralyzed the victim from the waist down, which resulted
in numerous hospitalizations to treat infections and other complications
throughout the remainder of his life. Dr. Gulino maintained that the victim’s
cause of death was homicide based on the gunshot wound despite cross-
examination on whether the medical treatment he received after the shooting
was the true cause of death. Based on this testimony, the shooting was the
but-for cause of Raynor’s death, and the resultant complications he
experienced in treatment were “natural or foreseeable consequence[s]” of the
shooting. Nunn, supra. Evidence of a financial settlement with Raynor’s
family would not have resulted in a different conclusion. Accordingly, this
claim is meritless.
Finally, the civil settlement does not bear on any of the remaining issues
Brown presented in his petition and on appeal. In those claims, he argues
that the Commonwealth was aware that a trial witness committed perjury,
-9-
J-S04039-23
that prior PCRA counsel was ineffective in litigating claims related to trial
counsel’s effectiveness, and that the Commonwealth failed to disclose
exculpatory information regarding eyewitness identifications and the victim’s
statements and interviews. He does not explain how discovering the
settlement led him to uncover these claims or contend that any other
timeliness exception applies. As he has failed to plead any exception to the
jurisdictional time-bar, his petition is untimely and we lack jurisdiction to
consider the merits of his claims.8
Orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/24/2023
____________________________________________
8 As the PCRA court observed, Brown did not raise these claims in his second
petition. PCRA Court Opinion, 7/21/22, at 8-11. Rather, he presented them
for the first time in an amended petition and right-to-know request he filed
without leave of court after the PCRA court had issued its notice of intent to
dismiss the petition without a hearing. Id. at 9-11 (citing Commonwealth
v. Baumhammers, 92 A.3d 708, 730 (Pa. 2014); Pa. R.A.P. 302(a)). They
are additionally waived on that basis. See Pa. R.A.P. 302(a).
- 10 -