Com. v. Brooks, F. ( 2023 )

J-S45024-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
FREDERICK BROOKS :
:
Appellant : No. 2212 EDA 2021
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 27, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0003383-2015
BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and MURRAY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2023
Appellant, Frederick Brooks, appeals from the September 27, 2021
order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County denying
his petition for collateral relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act
(“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Appellant contends the PCRA court
erred by denying relief because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
interview and investigate a witness. Upon review, we affirm.
On direct appeal, this Court repeated the trial court’s summary of
relevant facts as follows:
On August 24, 2014, [Appellant] was a hotel guest at the Crowne
Plaza Hotel in Philadelphia. Capri Grice, a housekeeper at the
hotel, knocked on [Appellant’s] door to clean the room,
announcing “housekeeping” before entering. When no one
responded, Ms. Grice opened the door only to find Brooks and a
woman asleep on the bed. Grice closed the door without entering
and continued down the hallway to clean the next room.
J-S45024-22
A short time afterwards, Brooks and his female companion exited
their room and followed Grice down the hallway, angrily
demanding that she return the money. [Appellant] then grabbed
the maid by the throat pinned her against the wall lifting her off
the ground choking her and rendering her unable to breathe while
she and her cart were searched by the woman who was with
[Appellant]. Ms. Grice testified that the choking lasted for
approximately fifteen minutes. The housekeeper told [Appellant]
that she did not have his money and she never entered his room.
When another hotel guest came out of their room and into the
hallway to intervene, Ms. Grice escaped to call security.
[Appellant] followed her into the room to which she had fled and
continued to angrily demand she return his money. [Appellant]
left to go search his room for the money which he found behind
the dresser. [Appellant] thought this was funny, laughing as he
told the housekeeper “Just let it go[]” and trying to give her some
money. Ms. Grice refused the money, and hotel management
called the police. When the police arrived on the scene,
[Appellant] had fled and Ms. Grice was still crying and visibly
shaking. The housekeeper was suffering from severe head pain
as a result of the choking, spent the night in the hospital and
missed a full week of work.
Commonwealth v. Brooks, 1190 EDA 2016, unpublished memorandum at
1-2 (Pa. Super. filed July 20, 2017) (quoting Trial Court Opinion, 7/12/16, at
2-3) (citations to notes of testimony omitted).
Following a bench trial, the trial court found Appellant guilty of
aggravated assault, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another
person, imposing an aggregate sentence of three to six years in prison,
followed by two years’ probation.1 On direct appeal, this Court affirmed his
____________________________________________
1At trial, the Commonwealth called as witnesses Ms. Grice and Officer Roland
Butler, the officer who arrived at the hotel in response to a radio call
concerning the assault. Appellant did not testify and did not present any
witnesses in his defense. See Notes of Testimony (“N.T.”), Trial, 12/16/15.
-2-
J-S45024-22
judgment of sentence. Id. Appellant then filed a petition for allowance of
appeal to our Supreme Court, which denied the petition on December 5, 2017.
Commonwealth v. Brooks, 176 A.3d 231 (Table) (Pa. 2017).
Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition on February 16, 2018.
Counsel was appointed and, following many continuances, the substitution of
counsel, and the filing of an amended petition, the Commonwealth filed a
motion to dismiss on February 23, 2021. On August 16, 2021, the PCRA court
issued a Notice pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 of its intent to dismiss the
amended petition without a hearing. By order entered on September 27,
2021, the PCRA court dismissed the petition. This timely appeal followed.
Both Appellant and the PCRA court complied with R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant presents one issue for our consideration:
Did the PCRA court err in dismissing Appellant’s PCRA petition
where Appellant’s conviction was the result of the ineffective
assistance of trial counsel, because trial counsel failed to interview
and investigate eyewitness David House, who witnessed the
events that transpired in this case, where David House’s first-hand
account of the events would have been relevant and probative on
the issue of whether Appellant’s alleged acts constituted any crime
of either simple assault or aggravated assault?
Appellant’s Brief at 8 (some capitalization omitted).
“It is well-established that counsel is presumed effective, and to rebut
that presumption, the PCRA petitioner must demonstrate that counsel’s
performance was deficient and that such deficiency prejudiced him.”
Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121, 132 (Pa. 2012) (citing Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–91, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674-3-
J-S45024-22
(1984)). As this Court reiterated in Commonwealth v. Stewart, 84 A.3d
701 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc), appeal denied, 93 A.3d 463 (Pa. 2014):
“To plead and prove ineffective assistance of counsel 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.” Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 612 Pa. 333, 30 A.3d 1111,
1127 (2011). Where the petitioner “fails to plead or meet any
elements of the above-cited test, his claim must
fail.” Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260, 1272 (Pa.
Super. 2010).
Id. at 706-07. See also Koehler, 36 A.3d at 132 (same). Our Supreme
Court has recognized that “an appellate court reviews the PCRA court’s
findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by the record, and
reviews its conclusions of law to determine whether they are free from legal
error.” Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294, 311 (Pa. 2014).
In his Amended PCRA Petition, the sole bases for relief were set forth in
Paragraphs 10(1) and 11(1). Appellant asserted he was entitled to PCRA relief
due to the “[i]neffective assistance of counsel which, in the circumstances of
the particular case, so undermined the truth determining process that no
reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.” Amended
PCRA Petition, 10/28/20, at ¶ 10. He continued:
11. More specifically, Petitioner is entitled to relief because trial
counsel was ineffective for,
(1) Inadequately preparing his case by failing to review
discovery and identify a witness David House. Conduct a
formal interview of such witness and present him at trial.
Counsel also failed to investigate this case and preserve and
collect video recordings from the crime scene.
-4-
J-S45024-22
Id. at ¶ 11 (verbatim).2
In Commonwealth v. Pander, 100 A.3d 626 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en
banc), this Court explained:
“Neglecting to call a witness differs from failing to investigate a
witness in a subtle but important way.” Stewart, 84 A.3d at 712.
The failure to investigate “presents an issue of arguable merit
where the record demonstrates that counsel did not perform an
investigation.” Id. “It can be unreasonable per se to conduct no
investigation into known witnesses.” Id. Importantly, a
petitioner still must demonstrate prejudice. Id. To demonstrate
prejudice where the allegation is the failure to interview a witness,
the petitioner must show that there is a reasonable probability
that the testimony the witness would have provided would have
led to a different outcome at trial. Commonwealth v.
Dennis, 597 Pa. 159, 950 A.2d 945, 961 (2008).
In this respect, a failure to investigate and a failure to interview a
witness overlaps with declining to call a witness since the
petitioner must prove: (i) the witness existed; (ii) the witness was
available to testify; (iii) counsel knew of, or should have known
of, the existence of the witness; (iv) the witness was willing to
testify; and (v) the absence of the testimony was so prejudicial as
to have denied the defendant a fair trial. See Commonwealth
v. Dennis, 609 Pa. 442, 17 A.3d 297, 302 (discussing failure to
interview and call and alibi witness).
Id. at 638-39.
Appellant notes that Mr. House was identified as an eyewitness to the
incident on Officer Butler’s report, which included Mr. House’s Virginia
address. Appellant suggests that “[t]o the extent that Mr. House witnessed
the events of this incident firsthand, Mr. House was a crucial fact witness in
____________________________________________
2 We note that Appellant is not pursuing his claim relating to video recordings
in this appeal.
-5-
J-S45024-22
Appellant’s case.” Appellant’s Brief at 17. He contends that Mr. House
witnessed the interaction between Ms. Grice and Appellant and that he
“observed events regarding the nature of the assault and seriousness of any
injuries.” Id. at 18.
As noted above, this Court in Pander recognized that failure to
investigate a known witness can be unreasonable per se. However,
“[i]mportantly, a petitioner must still demonstrate prejudice [by showing] that
there is a reasonable probability that the testimony the witness would have
provided would have led to a different outcome at trial.” Pander, 100 A.3d
at 638-39.
The timeline of events included in the Factual History set forth in
Appellant’s brief underscores the lack of prejudice resulting from the failure to
investigate and interview Mr. House. Appellant cites the testimony of Ms.
Grice, in which she recounts that Appellant and his female companion
approached her in the hall outside their room. There, an angry Appellant held
Ms. Grice against the wall with a hand on her throat and repeatedly asked
where his money was. When she responded that she did not know where his
money was, Appellant choked her against the wall while his companion
searched Ms. Grice and her housekeeping cart. Appellant continued his
accusatory tirade as Ms. Grice continued her denials. Appellant let her go but
then grabbed her arm and said, “B-I-T-C-H, where’s my money? I’m not
playing with you. Where’s my effing money?” Appellant’s Brief at 13-14
-6-
J-S45024-22
(quoting N.T., Trial, 12/16/15, at 10). “He then paced up and down the
hallway. Another hotel guest walked into the hallway and told
[Appellant] to calm down. In response, [Appellant] told the man to mind
his own business. While [Appellant] and the man were arguing, Ms. Grice
entered another room to call security.” Id. at 14 (citing N.T., Trial, 12/16/15,
at 10, 11) (emphasis added).3
By Appellant’s own timeline, the incidents of holding Ms. Grice against
the wall and choking her occurred before the guest, Mr. House, even stepped
into the hallway from his room. Nothing in Appellant’s Factual History
suggests Mr. House observed any part of the assault, unlike Appellant’s
companion—whom Appellant’s counsel identified as Appellant’s fiancée4—who
did not testify. Therefore, Appellant is unable to demonstrate prejudice by
showing any reasonable probability that testimony from Mr. House would have
led to a different outcome at trial. The failure to demonstrate actual prejudice
defeats Appellant’s claim with respect to the failure to investigate or interview
Mr. House. See Pander, 100 A.3d at 639.
Consistent with Pander, in which this Court also addressed the failure
to call a witness at trial, our Supreme Court has stated:
To prevail on a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to present a witness, the defendant must demonstrate that: (1)
____________________________________________
3We note that portions of Appellant’s Factual History erroneously cite Page 16
of the trial transcript for testimony that appears on Page 10 of the transcript.
4 See N.T., Sentencing, 4/8/16, at 8-9.
-7-
J-S45024-22
the witness existed; (2) counsel was either aware of or should
have been aware of the witness’s existence; (3) the witness was
willing and able to cooperate on behalf of the defendant; and (4)
the proposed testimony was necessary to avoid prejudice to the
defendant.
Commonwealth v. Tharp, 101 A.3d 736, 757 (Pa. 2014) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 855 A.2d 726, 746 (Pa. 2004) (additional citation
omitted)).
While Officer Butler’s report might confirm Mr. House’s existence and an
inference that trial counsel was aware of his existence, there is no suggestion
that Mr. House was willing or able to cooperate on Appellant’s behalf, or that
his proposed testimony would have been favorable to Appellant. In fact, Ms.
Grice’s testimony suggests to the contrary. As she testified, Mr. House came
out of his room, “and was, like, What’s going on. Calm down. Why you hitting
on her?” N.T. Trial, 12/16/15, at 9. She explained that Appellant told Mr.
House “to mind his business,” and then described Appellant and Mr. House as
“going at it” while she went into a nearby room to call security. Id. at 9-10.
As the PCRA court recognized,
[Appellant] has failed to provide even a scintilla of evidence
required. There is no affidavit from Mr. House, nor any other
evidence provided from which it could be determined that this
individual was willing to testify, or that his testimony would have
benefitted [Appellant] in any way whatsoever. . . . Having failed
to provide even a pittance of proof as to this witness, the claim is
meritless.
PCRA Court Opinion, 7/12/22, at 7.
-8-
J-S45024-22
We agree. By failing to demonstrate that Mr. House was available and
prepared to cooperate and to testify on his behalf, Appellant has failed to meet
his burden to raise even a prima facie claim of counsel’s ineffectiveness on
this basis. See Commonwealth v. Pursell, 724 A.2d 293, 306 (Pa. 1990).
We conclude that the PCRA court’s factual findings are supported by the
record and that its legal conclusions are free of error. Therefore, we shall not
disturb its ruling.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/28/2023
-9-