Com. v. Outerbridge, E. ( 2019 )

J-S03002-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ELLIOT OUTERBRIDGE,
Appellant No. 1274 EDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 3, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006588-2011
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 1, 2019
Appellant, Elliot Outerbridge, appeals from the post-conviction court’s
April 3, 2018 order denying his timely petition filed under the Post Conviction
Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
The facts underlying Appellant’s conviction are unnecessary to our
disposition of his appeal. We only note that Appellant was convicted, following
a jury trial, of first-degree murder and related offenses, committed when he
was 16 years old. On May 8, 2013, the court sentenced Appellant to a
mandatory-minimum term of 35 years’ incarceration under 18 Pa.C.S. §
1102.1(a)(1).1 Appellant filed a timely direct appeal, and this Court affirmed
____________________________________________
1 That provision reads:
(a) First degree murder.--A person who has been convicted
after June 24, 2012, of a murder of the first degree, first degree
J-S03002-19
on February 24, 2015. Commonwealth v. Outerbridge, 120 A.3d 389 (Pa.
Super. 2015) (unpublished memorandum).
On February 24, 2016, Appellant filed a timely, pro se PCRA petition.
Counsel was appointed and filed an amended petition on Appellant’s behalf.
On January 16, 2018, the court filed a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to
dismiss Appellant’s petition. The docket does not indicate that Appellant filed
a response. On April 3, 2018, the court issued an order dismissing 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) statement. However, Appellant’s
concise statement was untimely. Nevertheless, the court issued a Rule
1925(a) opinion that addressed the issues raised by Appellant in the
statement and, therefore, we decline to remand. Commonwealth v.
Burton, 973 A.2d 428, 433 (Pa. Super. 2009) (holding that where an
appellant files an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement, “this Court may decide
____________________________________________
murder of an unborn child or murder of a law enforcement officer
of the first degree and who was under the age of 18 at the time
of the commission of the offense shall be sentenced as follows:
(1) A person who at the time of the commission of the
offense was 15 years of age or older shall be sentenced to
a term of life imprisonment without parole, or a term of
imprisonment, the minimum of which shall be at least 35
years to life.
18 Pa.C.S. § 1102.1(a)(1). Section 1102.1(d) sets forth factors the court
must consider (and on which it must render findings of fact) when imposing a
sentence of life without parole under subdivision (a).
-2-
J-S03002-19
the appeal on the merits if the trial court had adequate opportunity to prepare
an opinion addressing the issues being raised on appeal”). Herein, Appellant
states one issue for our review:
I. Did the Honorable PCRA [c]ourt err when it dismissed the
[a]mended [p]etition without granting a hearing?
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
To begin, 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).
Here, aside from setting forth the general legal principles that guide our
review of PCRA orders (similar to that quoted above), Appellant’s entire
argument in his brief consists of the following:
[Appellant] was sentenced to a term of thirty-five (35) years
to [l]ife. Counsel did not object to the sentencing proceedings.
While [Appellant] may have received a sentence as authorized by
18 Pa.C.S. § 1102.1, the proceedings still needed to have been
challenged as they did not necessarily comply with the edict of
Miller [v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012),] and they did not
comply with the program set up by the Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas to deal with Juvenile Life issues.
Counsel is not challenging the discretionary aspects of the
sentencing but the constitutionality and fundamental fairness of
the proceedings as a whole. Counsel respectfully requests that
[Appellant’s case] be remanded to the [s]entencing [c]ourt for a
new sentencing hearing that meets all constitutional
requirements.
-3-
J-S03002-19
Appellant’s Brief at 7-8.
The argument presented by Appellant is clearly inadequate to permit
our meaningful review, as it consists of only bald assertions that are not
supported with any developed discussion. Moreover, as the PCRA court points
out,
[t]he court imposed the minimum sentence permitted by the
statute. The court could have sentenced [Appellant] to an
additional three and one-half to seven years for [a] violation of
the Uniform Firearms Act [for which Appellant was convicted]….
However, after considering all of the evidence, and demonstrating
its mercy, the court chose not to do so.
Since [Appellant] was not sentenced to life without parole, the
court was not required to make the findings on the record required
by 18 Pa.C.S. [§] 1102.1(d).
[Appellant] received the minimum possible sentence. He has
nothing to complain about [regarding] the sentence.
PCRA Court Opinion, 7/11/18, at 4-5.
We agree with the PCRA court and, given the meager argument
presented by Appellant on appeal, we discern no error in the court’s denial of
his petition.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/1/19
-4-