Com. v. Jackson (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S79037-12 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. WILLIAM JACKSON, Appellant No. 1601 EDA 2012 Appeal from the PCRA Order of May 4, 2012, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division at No. CP-51-CR-0807401-2006 BEFORE: OLSON, WECHT and COLVILLE*, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY COLVILLE, J.: Filed: February 26, 2013 This is a pro se appeal from the order dismissing Appellant s petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ( PCRA ). Appellant was convicted of, inter alia, murder of the first degree. Following an unsuccessful direct appeal, Appellant timely filed a pro se PCRA petition. Counsel was appointed; counsel subsequently sought permission to withdraw pursuant to the procedure set forth in Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). The PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss; Appellant filed a pro se response thereto. The order on appeal followed. _________________ *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S79037-12 On appeal, Appellant challenges the PCRA court s denial of relief, asserting that the following four claims of trial counsel s ineffectiveness were meritorious and that PCRA counsel should have included them in an amended PCRA petition: (1) failure to conduct investigation into potential witnesses; (2) failure to request jury instructions on the decedent s prior acts of violence; (3) failure to object to the opening and closing arguments of the Commonwealth; and (4) failure to object to a violation of a sequestration order. Our standard of review of the denial of PCRA relief is limited to examining whether the court's rulings are supported by the evidence of record and free of legal error. 1184, 1189 (Pa. Super. 2010). Commonwealth v. Anderson, 995 A.2d Further, it is an appellant's burden to persuade this Court that the PCRA court erred and that relief is due. Commonwealth v. Bennett, 19 A.3d 541, 543 (Pa. Super. 2011). To establish ineffectiveness of counsel, a PCRA petitioner must show the underlying claim has arguable merit, counsel s actions lacked any reasonable basis, and counsel s actions prejudiced the petitioner. Commonwealth v. Cox, 983 A.2d 666, 678 (Pa. 2009). Following a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, and the well-crafted opinion of the PCRA court, we find that the trial court properly denied relief on Appellant s first three claims. Finding no error on the part of the PCRA court, and determining that the PCRA court opinion adequately and accurately disposes of these claims, we adopt the PCRA court s opinion as our own. -2- J-S79037-12 In Appellant s fourth issue, the underlying claim is that trial counsel should have objected to the testimony of Tahera Cooper on the basis that she had been present in the courtroom during the trial in violation of a sequestration order. We find this claim to be without merit as Appellant has failed to establish that any such sequestration order existed. Appellant cites to a motion made by his counsel for sequestration of witness at a pre-trial hearing on a suppression motion; however, he does not establish that any similar order existed for trial. Having failed to prove the merits of the underlying claim, Appellant is not entitled to relief on his appellate claim. Order affirmed. -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
