Com. v. Johnson, W. ( 2020 )

J-S29039-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
WAYNE JOHNSON :
:
Appellant : No. 2454 EDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 23, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0010416-2009
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: Filed: August 20, 2020
Wayne Johnson (Johnson) appeals from the order entered in the Court
of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (PCRA court) dismissing his petition
filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-
9546. We affirm.
I.
A.
On May 27, 2009, around 7:38 p.m., Philadelphia Police Officers Jose
Perez and Joseph Pannick were driving when they heard gunshots at an
apartment complex two blocks away. Officer Perez, the driver, turned the car
and sped toward the gunfire. As the officers approached, two men were
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S29039-20
standing and pointing guns at Derrick Davis (Davis). Both men were making
pumping motions with their arms and Officer Perez could see gunpowder come
out of one of the guns. When they saw the police car, the two men fled.
Officer Pannick went after and caught one of the men, Robert Harris (Harris),
who discarded a handgun while being chased. Officer Perez was unable to
catch the other man but identified Johnson later that night in a photo array
made by a police imaging machine, realizing he had seen Johnson before in
the neighborhood. Davis died because of six gunshot wounds and a warrant
was issued for Johnson’s arrest.
At the crime scene, the police recovered the handgun discarded by
Harris: a Smith & Wesson .40 caliber that was jammed with a double feed.
The police also recovered nine fired cartridge casings and a projectile.
Significantly, the casings and the projectile were all .45 caliber. A few days
after the murder, a Philadelphia mail carrier found a Glock .45 handgun in a
mailbox. Ballistics testing was performed to determine if it matched the
casings and projectile. While no conclusion could be reached about the
projectile, the testing determined that the casings were fired by the Glock .45
handgun.1
____________________________________________
1 A projectile was also recovered during the autopsy but no determination
about its caliber could be made.
-2-
J-S29039-20
The police also obtained outdoor video surveillance footage from the
apartment complex. Although it did not show the murder being committed,
the surveillance footage showed Johnson and Harris walking together toward
where Davis was killed just before it happened. Less than a minute later, the
two reappear running away from the police and then splitting up. After eluding
Officer Perez, Johnson could be seen tossing away a handgun and then
entering an apartment building. A few minutes later, two men retrieved the
handgun while talking on their cell phones.
B.
A little over a month after the murder, Johnson was apprehended in
South Carolina. After waiving his Miranda rights, Johnson claimed that he
knew nothing about the murder because he left Philadelphia for South Carolina
a few days before Memorial Day, which would have been two days before
Davis was killed. However, after additional questioning, Johnson admitted he
was in a nearby house when the shooting occurred. He nonetheless
maintained that he was not involved, insisting that he was inside all day with
a toothache and did not go outside to see what was happening when there
were gunshots.
In May 2011, Johnson and Harris proceeded to a joint jury trial. Officer
Pannick could identify only Harris as one of the two men standing over Davis
holding guns. Officer Perez, however, identified both Johnson and Harris,
testifying that he got close enough to see Johnson’s gun emit gunpowder. A
-3-
J-S29039-20
third eyewitness, Patricia Terry, testified that she was nearby when she heard
gunshots. After falling to the ground to cover her grandson, she looked up
and saw two men standing over Davis. Besides the eyewitness testimony, the
Commonwealth also presented outdoor video surveillance footage from the
apartment complex, the ballistics evidence and the audio recording of
Johnson’s statement after he was arrested.
Johnson and Harris presented defenses claiming that Davis was killed
by a man named Allen Dorsey (Dorsey), who was killed in July 2009. Though
both conceded being close to the shooting, Johnson and Harris argued that
the police chased after them only because they ran away after the shooting.
Johnson did not contest that the video surveillance footage showed him
tossing away a gun after he eluded Officer Perez, but disputed that his gun
was the Glock .45 later discovered in the mailbox.
While neither Johnson nor Harris took the stand, three defense
witnesses testified that they saw Dorsey shoot Davis. The first was Eric
Williams (Williams). He testified that he was waiting for a bus when he heard
gunshots. He then turned and saw Dorsey pointing a gun at Davis on the
ground, at which point Williams ran away. The second witness was Lawrence
Lewis (Lewis). He testified that he was standing around when Johnson and
Harris walked up to him. As the three were talking, Lewis looked down the
street and saw Dorsey arguing with Davis. Moments later, Dorsey pulled out
a gun and shot Davis. The third witness was Harris’s sister, Patricia Harris.
-4-
J-S29039-20
She testified that she was in her apartment when she looked outside and saw
Johnson and her brother walking. After hearing a gunshot, she rushed to her
window and saw Dorsey shoot Davis in the back, with Johnson and her brother
then running back in the direction that they came.
The Commonwealth attacked the witnesses’ credibility on two bases.
The first was bias. Besides highlighting the potential bias of Patricia Harris for
her brother, the Commonwealth questioned Williams and Lewis about their
relationships with the defendants. Williams admitted that he was childhood
friends with the defendants and grew up in the same neighborhood as them.
Similarly, though he was older than the defendants, Lewis testified that he
has known them both since they were young and growing up in the same
neighborhood, estimating that he has known them for over ten years.
The second attack was that the witnesses waited until trial to come
forward and claim that they saw Dorsey shoot Davis. Williams said that he
was scared to come forward initially, but still did not want to get involved even
after learning that the defendants were charged with murder. Lewis did not
contact the police because he assumed the video surveillance footage showed
that Dorsey killed Davis. After learning that the defendants were charged,
Lewis claimed that he spoke to Harris’s first attorney about giving a statement.
After that, however, he heard nothing further until Harris’s second attorney
contacted him a few weeks before trial. Lewis also claimed that, despite
Dorsey being killed in July 2009, he was scared to come forward out of fear
-5-
J-S29039-20
for his family’s safety. Finally, Patricia Harris testified that she knew her
brother was arrested but did not learn that he was charged with murder until
she went to his preliminary hearing. At that point, she figured giving a
statement would be futile because it would be her word against the police, not
to mention she was scared of retaliation for cooperating. Similar to Lewis,
she claimed that her brother’s first attorney told her an investigator would
interview her but heard nothing further until his second attorney contacted
her just before trial.
At the conclusion of the trial, Johnson was convicted of first-degree
murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.2 The jury, however, acquitted
Harris of murder and conspiracy but could not reach a verdict on the remaining
firearms charges. In November 2011, he entered into a negotiated guilty plea
agreement on those charges and was sentenced to 11½ to 23 months’
imprisonment followed by five years’ probation.3
____________________________________________
2Johnson was also convicted of possessing an instrument of crime, carrying
a firearm without a license and carrying a firearm on a public street in
Philadelphia. He was found not guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.
3 Harris pled guilty to firearms not to be carried without a license and carrying
a firearm on public streets in Philadelphia; the Commonwealth dismissed
possession of an instrument of crime. In December 2012, Harris was
resentenced on a probation violation. When his counsel failed to file a direct
appeal, Harris filed a PCRA petition that languished for several years. After
his appeal rights were reinstated, we affirmed the resentencing.
Commonwealth v. Harris, No. 723 EDA 2018 (Pa. Super. December 30,
2019) (unpublished memorandum).
-6-
J-S29039-20
After the denial of his post-sentence motion, Johnson filed a direct
appeal to raise a jury instruction claim. We affirmed the judgment of sentence
and our Supreme Court denied his petition for allowance of appeal.
Commonwealth v. Johnson, No. 2662 EDA 2011 (Pa. Super. April 4, 2013),
appeal denied, 74 A.3d 1030 (table) (Pa. September 12, 2013). Johnson did
not seek certiorari in the Supreme Court.
II.
Johnson’s PCRA petition began its tortuous path on April 1, 2014, when
he filed a pro se petition requesting counsel, which the PCRA court appointed
a few months later. In March 2015, Johnson filed a pro se supplement
asserting that he sent his counsel an affidavit from his co-defendant Harris.
That affidavit, which was dated December 15, 2014, read as follows:
I was walking to see my sister to give her some money for my
nephew[.] I [saw Johnson]. He asked me where I was going[.]
I told him my sister[’s] house[.] He said cool[,] he was going that
way too to Sneakervilla to buy a hat[.] As we got in front of my
sister[’s] door we [saw] a few of our friends standing around[.]
As we got closer I noticed Allen [Dorsey] and [Derrick Davis] in a
heated argument[.] Allen [Dorsey] pulled a gun out and shot
[Davis][.] [Davis] started to run[.] Allen [Dorsey] ran after him
and kept shooting him[.] The crowd came[.] I ran[.] [Johnson]
ran[.] I got stopped by the cops[.] They arrested me for having
a gun on me[.] I don’t know where [Johnson] went[.] I think he
ran home[.] I know I [saw] Allen [Dorsey] shoot [Davis] for sure.
When there was no progress on Johnson’s petition, the PCRA court
appointed new counsel, and when there were no new developments for several
months, Johnson asked permission to proceed pro se. In April 2017, the PCRA
court relieved counsel and appointed Johnson his third PCRA counsel. On July
-7-
J-S29039-20
12, 2018, PCRA counsel filed an amended petition raising a single after-
discovered evidence claim under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(vi) based on Harris’s
affidavit that he saw Dorsey shoot Davis.
On March 8, 2019, the PCRA court stated on the record its intent to
dismiss the petition without hearing. Finding that Harris’s testimony would be
cumulative of the three defense witnesses who testified at trial, the PCRA court
explained:
Exculpatory accomplice evidence should be viewed with
suspicion, especially where the accomplice has already been tried
and has nothing to lose.
[Harris’s] testimony will be cumulative as its substance was
already presented to the jury three Defense witnesses at trial[:]
Eric Williams, Lawrence Lewis and Patricia Harris.
All three individuals testified that Allen Dorsey shot and
killed [Davis]. None of these witnesses were impeached with
crimen falsi. Instead, the Commonwealth showed that the
witnesses were biased and had motive to lie due to their close
relationships with [Johnson] and with [Harris] because [Johnson]
and [Harris] had a close relationship. Patricia Harris was [Harris’s]
sister and the other two males were close friends of [Johnson] and
[Harris].
Therefore, Harris[’s] testimony would constitute that of a
fourth witness who not only had bias toward all of the other parties
involved in the case because of the close relationship but also who
was a codefendant, who, essentially, was not found guilty of
murder, already pled to only weapons offenses, could not be tried
again and had nothing to lose. Therefore, the testimony of Mr.
Harris would have the added detriment of being viewed with a
jaundice eye.
N.T., 3/8/19, at 11-12.
-8-
J-S29039-20
Even if not cumulative, the PCRA court went on to find that the
testimony would not change the outcome of the trial:
The jury heard from two police officer eyewitnesses, one of
them knew [Johnson] from the neighborhood and saw him from
12 feet away, in broad daylight, holding a smoking gun, over
[Davis], who was laying there, with six gunshot wounds.
There was also video and an additional eyewitness and the
importance of that eyewitness, Patricia Terry, is that her
testimony [was] that there were two persons, two males,
standing, shooting over the individual on the ground and the
testimony by Mr. Harris would be that there was one person and
that that was this person named Allen Dorsey.
So his testimony wouldn’t comport with the video and the
eyewitness evidence. Therefore, his testimony certainly would not
have changed the outcome or would not likely compel a different
verdict in this case.
Id. at 12-13.
After Johnson responded, the PCRA court entered an order dismissing
the petition on April 11, 2019. Because Johnson apparently never received
the order, the PCRA court reissued it on July 23, 2019, and appointed Johnson
new counsel to file a notice of appeal, which he did on August 22, 2019.4 On
appeal, Johnson raises a single issue: whether the PCRA court erred in
dismissing his petition without an evidentiary hearing because he raised a
____________________________________________
4Johnson also filed a pro se notice of appeal that was docketed at No. 2339
EDA 2019 and later dismissed as duplicative.
-9-
J-S29039-20
meritorious after-discovered evidence claim based on his co-defendant
Harris’s affidavit.5
III.
A PCRA petitioner asserting an after-discovered evidence claim must
plead and prove “[t]he unavailability at the time of trial of exculpatory
evidence that has subsequently become available and would have changed
the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced.” 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 9543(a)(2)(vi). A petitioner seeking relief on this basis must show that the
evidence:
(1) could not have been obtained prior to the conclusion of the
trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence; (2) is not merely
corroborative or cumulative; (3) will not be used solely to impeach
the credibility of a witness; and (4) would likely result in a different
verdict if a new trial were granted.
____________________________________________
5 Our standard of review of the denial of PCRA relief without hearing is as
follows:
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. The PCRA court’s findings will not be
disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in the certified
record. Further, 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. Cruz, 223 A.3d 274, 277 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citations and
quotation marks omitted).
- 10 -
J-S29039-20
Commonwealth v. Williams, 215 A.3d 1019, 1024 (Pa. Super. 2019)
(citation omitted). Because this test is conjunctive, a petitioner’s failure to
establish one prong by a preponderance of the evidence obviates the need to
examine the remaining ones. Commonwealth v. Solano, 129 A.3d 1156,
1180 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted).
The Commonwealth does not contest the first and third prongs. Because
Harris was a co-defendant and invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination at trial, he was unavailable to testify and did not become
available until he pled guilty on the remaining firearms charges. See
Commonwealth v. Fiore, 780 A.2d 704, 711 (Pa. Super. 2001) (“A witness’s
invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights renders him unavailable.”). Further,
because he is claiming that he witnessed the murder, Harris would not be used
solely to impeach the credibility of another witness.
We now turn to the second element: whether the evidence is “merely
corroborative or cumulative” of other evidence adduced at trial.
A.
To be more than “merely corroborative or cumulative,” our Supreme
Court has instructed that the evidence must be “of a different and higher grade
or character, though upon the same point, or of the same grade or character
on a different point[.]” Commonwealth v. Small, 189 A.3d 961, 974 (Pa.
2018) (internal quotations omitted). If, however, the after-discovered
- 11 -
J-S29039-20
evidence “is of the same character and to the same material point as evidence
already adduced at trial,” then it will not support the grant of a new trial. Id.Johnson argues that Harris’s testimony, though corroborative of his
claim at trial that Dorsey killed Davis, would be of a different or higher grade
and, therefore, more credible than that given by the three defense witnesses
at trial. He emphasizes that the Commonwealth attacked the credibility of
each defense witness for waiting until trial to claim that they saw Dorsey shoot
Davis. According to Johnson, unlike those witnesses, Harris has an
“unassailable explanation” for not coming forward: he was a co-defendant
and invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He further
contends that Harris’s testimony has added credibility because the
Commonwealth’s own testimonial and video surveillance evidence established
that Harris was at the apartment complex when the shooting occurred.
The Commonwealth counters that though Harris was a co-defendant and
not obligated to testify at the trial, Harris waited until December 2014 to give
his affidavit claiming that he saw Dorsey shoot Davis. Because he pled guilty
and was sentenced in November 2011 on his remaining charges, Harris waited
over three years before coming forward, a delay which Johnson fails to explain
in his amended petition. Based on this delay, the Commonwealth contends
that Harris’s credibility would be subject to the same attack as that of the
three defense witnesses.
- 12 -
J-S29039-20
First, Johnson’s argument ignores one of the main reasons the PCRA
court gave for dismissing his claim: an affidavit submitted by a co-defendant,
particularly after the co-defendant has been convicted and sentenced, have
long been recognized as being “notoriously unreliable.” Commonwealth v.
Washington, 927 A.2d 586, 597 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA court properly rejected
co-defendant’s confession as lacking credibility when co-defendant had
already been convicted of murder and had nothing to lose by testifying); see
also Commonwealth v. Frey, 517 A.2d 1265, 1268-69 (Pa. 1986) (finding
that statement by co-defendant after he had been sentenced for his
participation in the crime “raises a significant question as to its reliability”);
Commonwealth v. Treftz, 351 A.2d 265, 272-73 (Pa. 1976) (rejecting after-
discovered evidence claim based on co-conspirator’s confession that would
have exonerated defendant where co-conspirator learned he could not be
retried because of double jeopardy).
Here, as the PCRA court observed, Harris was acquitted of murder and
conspiracy at the trial and then pled guilty and was sentenced on the
remaining firearms charges in November 2011. This being the case, there is
no disincentive for him to claim that Dorsey shot Davis because he is under
no threat of further prosecution. As an initial matter then, the PCRA court
was correct to view the reliability of the affidavit by Harris, an acquitted co-
defendant, with skepticism.
- 13 -
J-S29039-20
B.
Next, Johnson overestimates the credibility that would attach to Harris’s
testimony by informing the jury the reason why he could not come forward,
especially since he waited over three years before doing so. Johnson believes
that Harris would have a sound explanation for not coming forward at trial,
since he was also accused of murder and exercised his Fifth Amendment right
against self-incrimination. However, this explanation would apply only up to
when Harris disposed of his case by pleading guilty and being sentenced on
the remaining charges. Because he did not file a direct appeal of his guilty
plea and sentence, Harris became available as a witness in November 2011.
Despite this, it was not until December 2014—over three years later—when
Harris finally came forward and gave an affidavit claiming that he was with
Johnson when he saw Dorsey shoot Davis. Consequently, the Commonwealth
is correct that Harris’s credibility could be attacked just the same as all three
defense witnesses were for waiting to come forward.
Harris’s delay is also particularly damaging because his affidavit merely
reiterates the same version of events that Johnson argued at trial; namely,
that he and Harris were near the shooting when it occurred and then ran away.
Harris’s affidavit is not after-discovered evidence in the sense that it contains
information that Johnson did not know; instead, it merely contains information
that, if true, Johnson would have known since the murder because Harris is
claiming that he was with Johnson when he saw the murder committed.
- 14 -
J-S29039-20
Importantly, Johnson’s amended petition contains no averments explaining
why it took over three years for Harris to give his affidavit, averring merely
that Johnson “came into possession” of it. Amended PCRA Petition, 7/12/18,
at Paragraph 10.
Without any explanation for this three-year delay, any credibility gained
by informing the jury that Harris was a co-defendant at the first trial would be
negated—if not overwhelmed—by the Commonwealth showing that he is an
acquitted co-defendant who waited over three years before coming forward.
We cannot conclude, as Johnson urges, that Harris’s testimony would be of a
higher grade or character than the three defense witnesses. Accordingly, we
agree with the PCRA court’s assessment that Harris would be a cumulative
witness.
C.
Even if Harris’s testimony was not cumulative, we agree with the PCRA
court that it would not likely result in a different verdict if a new trial were
held. Before granting a new trial based on after-discovered evidence, “a court
must assess whether the alleged after-discovered evidence is of such a nature
and character that it would likely compel a different verdict if a new trial is
granted.” Commonwealth v. Padillas, 997 A.2d 356, 365 (Pa. Super.
2010). “In making this determination, a court should consider the integrity of
the alleged after-discovered evidence, the motive of those offering the
- 15 -
J-S29039-20
evidence, and the overall strength of the evidence supporting the conviction.”
Id.At trial, Officer Perez testified that he saw Johnson standing over Davis
as he lay prone on the ground. N.T., 5/12/11, at 13. As he got closer, Officer
Perez saw Johnson make a pumping motion while holding the gun, getting
close enough to see Johnson’s gun actually discharge gunpowder. Id. Besides
Officer Perez, the Commonwealth presented two eyewitnesses to corroborate
that two men were involved in the shooting and refute the defense’s claim
that Dorsey acted alone. While Officer Pannick could identify only Harris, his
testimony echoed that of Officer Perez that there were two men standing over
Davis on the ground. N.T., 5/11/12, at 54. Both men, he testified, had guns
pointed at Davis and both were making firing motions with their arms. Id. at
60-61. Patricia Terry further corroborated that there were two shooters. After
the shooting, she gave a statement to police that she saw two men shooting
at the man on the ground. Id. at 126. Notably, as the PCRA court noted,
Patricia Terry was an independent eyewitness with no apparent bias in favor
of any of the persons involved.
That the jury acquitted Harris of murder and conspiracy need not, for
our purposes, be interpreted as a rejection of the eyewitness evidence that
two men—Johnson and Harris—were involved in the murder. Generally, as
our Supreme Court has explained, inconsistent verdicts “are allowed to stand
so long as the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.”
- 16 -
J-S29039-20
Commonwealth v. Miller, 35 A.3d 1206, 1208 (Pa. 2012) (citations
omitted). A court should not speculate on whether the verdicts were a “result
of mistake, compromise, lenity, or any other factor.” Id. at 1213. Moreover,
“an acquittal cannot be interpreted as a specific finding in relation to some of
the evidence, and ... even where two verdicts are logically inconsistent, such
inconsistency alone cannot be grounds for a new trial or for reversal.” Id.
This is particularly so in this case where the Commonwealth’s own evidence
was that Harris’s gun, the Smith & Wesson .40 caliber recovered at the murder
scene, was never fired due to a double feed, which was consistent with the
police recovering only .45 caliber ballistics at the murder scene.
The Commonwealth’s version of events was also reinforced by the video
surveillance footage showing Johnson and Harris walking together toward the
scene of the murder and then running away from the police less than a minute
later. That Johnson incorporated the video surveillance footage into his theory
of his defense does not diminish its inculpatory value in showing Johnson walk
toward where Davis was shot; run from and elude Officer Perez; discard a
handgun; and then have two men come to retrieve the gun minutes later.
Additionally, Johnson’s post-arrest statement had inculpatory value. In that
statement, not only did Johnson begin by lying about being in Philadelphia
when the murder occurred, but he continued to lie even after admitting that
he was nearby when the shooting happened, claiming that he was inside all
- 17 -
J-S29039-20
day with a toothache—a claim directly contradicted by the video surveillance
footage and his own defense theory.
Against all this evidence supporting guilt, Johnson argues that the
verdict would likely be different at a new trial if he were permitted to present
the testimony of his co-defendant Harris. As noted above, in determining
whether allegedly after-discovered evidence warrants a new trial, the PCRA
court considers the integrity of the evidence along with the motive of the
witness offering the evidence. Padillas, supra. Here, Harris’s testimony
would be an acquitted co-defendant who waited over three years before finally
providing an affidavit. Additionally, no less than three witnesses testified for
the defense at the trial for the very same claim. Despite each witness
explaining why they did not come forward until trial, the jury still credited
Officer Perez’s testimony over the witnesses and found beyond a reasonable
doubt that Johnson shot and killed Davis. It is difficult to imagine that the
testimony of a fourth witness, let alone that of an acquitted co-defendant,
would result in a jury reaching a different verdict.
Accordingly, we find that the PCRA court correctly concluded that the
alleged after-discovered evidence would not result in a different outcome if
presented at a new trial.
Order affirmed.
- 18 -
J-S29039-20
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/20/20
- 19 -