Com. v. Mcdowell, R. (memorandum)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S45026-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. ROBERT MCDOWELL Appellant No. 2407 EDA 2016 Appeal from the PCRA Order June 30, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0015492-2008 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.* MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED OCTOBER 31, 2017 Robert McDowell (Appellant) appeals from the order entered on June 30, 2016, which denied his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm. On December 20, 2010, a jury convicted Appellant of, inter alia, two counts of first-degree murder for his role in the shooting deaths of two individuals.1 This Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on September 9, 2013, and our Supreme Court denied his petition for allowance of appeal on April 9, 2014. ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. We adopt the recitation of facts on page 2 of the PCRA court’s opinion as our own. See PCRA Court Opinion, 10/21/2016, at 2 (quoting Commonwealth v. McDowell, 87 A.3d 374 (Pa. Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum at 1)). 1 J-S45026-17 Appellant timely filed a counseled PCRA petition raising numerous ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims for both trial and appellate counsel. The PCRA court granted a hearing on one claim, specifically that trial counsel was ineffective by giving Appellant legally incorrect information about his right to testify. A hearing was held on June 30, 2016, and on the same day, the PCRA court entered an order denying Appellant PCRA relief. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, and both Appellant and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. On appeal, Appellant has set forth eight questions for our review, see Appellant’s Brief at 11-12, all of which suggest the PCRA court erred in denying relief on Appellant’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. We review such claims mindful of the following. This Court analyzes PCRA appeals in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level. Our review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record and we do not disturb a PCRA court’s ruling if it is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal error. Similarly, we grant great deference to the factual findings of the PCRA court and will not disturb those findings unless they have no support in the record. However, we afford no such deference to its legal conclusions. Where the petitioner raises questions of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Finally, we may affirm a PCRA court’s decision on any grounds if the record supports it. Commonwealth v. Benner, 147 A.3d 915, 919 (Pa. Super. 2016) (quoting Commonwealth v. Perry, 128 A.3d 1285, 1289 (Pa. Super. 2015)). “It is well-established that counsel is presumed effective, and the [petitioner] bears the burden of proving ineffectiveness.” Commonwealth v. Martin, 5 A.3d -2- J-S45026-17 177, 183 (Pa. 2010). To overcome this presumption, Appellant must show each of the following: “(1) the underlying substantive claim has arguable merit; (2) counsel whose effectiveness is being challenged did not have a reasonable basis for his or her actions or failure to act; and (3) the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s deficient performance.” Id. Appellant’s claim will be denied if he fails to meet any one of these three prongs. Id. Following a review of the certified record and the briefs for the parties, we conclude that the opinion of the Honorable Glenn B. Bronson thoroughly addresses Appellant’s issues and arguments and applies the correct law to findings of fact that are supported by the record. We discern no abuse of discretion. Therefore, we adopt the PCRA court’s opinion of October 21, 2016 as our own and affirm the order denying Appellant PCRA relief based upon the reasons stated therein.2 See PCRA Court Opinion, 10/21/2016, at 4-5 (concluding that Appellant waived his right to be represented by original counsel and that new counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a continuance);3 id. at 5-8 (concluding that trial counsel advised Appellant properly about his right to testify and therefore was not ineffective);4 id. at ____________________________________________ The parties shall attach a copy of the PCRA court’s October 21, 2016 opinion to this memorandum in the event of further proceedings. 2 3 4 See Appellant’s Brief at 24-34. See Appellant’s Brief at 35-40. -3- J-S45026-17 8-12 (concluding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request the trial court recuse itself because there was no meritorious basis for doing so);5 id. at 12-15 (concluding trial counsel was not ineffective by failing to object to jury instructions);6 id. at 15-17 (concluding trial counsel was not ineffective by failing to request a limiting instruction pursuant to Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 23 (1968), because there was no reasonable probability the outcome of the trial would have been different); 7 id. at 17-20 (concluding that trial counsel was not ineffective by failing to make nonmeritorious objections regarding prosecutorial misconduct);8 id. at 20-21 (concluding that claims of appellate counsel ineffectiveness were without merit);9 and id. at 21 (concluding that there was no basis for a claim that the cumulative effect of all other errors resulted in prejudice).10 Order affirmed. President Judge Gantman joins. Judge Panella concurs in the result. ____________________________________________ See Appellant’s Brief at 41-47. See Appellant’s Brief at 54-60. 7 See Appellant’s Brief at 60-62. 8 See Appellant’s Brief at 47-52. 9 See Appellant’s Brief at 52-54. 10 See Appellant’s Brief at 62-63. 5 6 -4- J-S45026-17 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 10/31/2017 -5- Circulated 10/12/2017 12:48 PM

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.