Com. v. Haynes, R. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S41029-18 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROYSCE HAYNES Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 3170 EDA 2017 Appeal from the PCRA Order August 24, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0014368-2012, CP-51-CR-0014369-2012 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED OCTOBER 10, 2018 Appellant, Roysce Haynes, appeals from the order entered on August 24, 2017 in the Criminal Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County that dismissed, without a hearing, his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm. This Court previously summarized the historical facts in this case as follows: During the afternoon of September 10, 2012, Philadelphia Probation and Parole Officers Shondell Williams and Evan Moore– Mathis visited [Appellant]. As they approached his apartment, they saw him sitting on the steps outside the apartment entrance. He appeared stunned and was somewhat unresponsive to questions. His head was lowered and when asked whether the police should be summoned, he said yes. N.T. April 29, 2014, pp. 81–87. ____________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S41029-18 Philadelphia Police Officer Jonathan Ransom was called to [a residence along] Chelton Avenue in the Germantown section of Philadelphia. There he encountered [Appellant], who told him that he had been in an argument with his girlfriend, that the argument had become physical, and that he had choked her. When Officer Ransom went inside [Appellant’s] apartment, he saw the decedent, Atiya Perry, lying on the floor and bleeding from the head. She had no signs of life. Officer Ransom noticed a bloody towel lying on the floor near her head. Id. at 32–46. Dr. Marlin Osbourne, Assistant Medical Examiner, performed the autopsy on the decedent and determined that her death was a homicide achieved by strangulation. [The decedent] also had small lacerations on her left cheek. Dr. Osbourne determined that based on the size of the fetus in her uterus, she had been pregnant for seven weeks at the time of her death. Id. at 113–124. Detective Edward Tolliver took a statement from [Appellant] the day of the killing. In it, [Appellant] acknowledged killing the decedent. He said that the decedent had been hitting him with a closed fist on the side of his head and that she had tried to use pepper spray against him, and that he choked her. He also said that the decedent had told him that she was pregnant, but that he did not believe her. Id. at 139–157. Detective Tracey Byard searched the apartment in the immediate aftermath of the murder. He did not find any mace or pepper spray anywhere in the apartment. Id. at 189. Prenatal vitamins and magazines about pregnancy were found in the apartment. Id. at 68–69. Commonwealth v. Haynes, 125 A.3d 800, 802 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied, 140 A.3d 12 (Pa. 2016). Appellant was arrested and charged with murder and murder of an unborn child on September 10, 2012. Following trial, a jury found Appellant guilty of third-degree murder for killing Atiya Perry and third-degree murder for the death of her unborn child. On July 1, 2014, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 35 to 70 years’ incarceration. Both Appellant and the Commonwealth appealed the judgment of sentence. On October 5, 2015, this -2- J-S41029-18 Court affirmed the judgment and our Supreme Court denied further review on June 1, 2016. Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition on September 29, 2016. Thereafter, appointed counsel filed an amended petition on May 10, 2017. On July 13, 2017, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, the PCRA court issued notice of its intent to dismiss Appellant’s petition without a hearing. Appellant did not respond to the dismissal notice and the court denied the petition on August 24, 2017. This timely appeal followed. Appellant raises a single question for our review: Did the [PCRA c]ourt err when it dismissed [Appellant’s] PCRA [p]etition without a [h]earing? Appellant’s Brief at 3. We have carefully reviewed the certified record, the submissions of the parties, and the opinion of the PCRA court. Based upon our review, we conclude that Appellant’s claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel is meritless and that he failed to raise a genuine issue of fact that required an evidentiary hearing to resolve. We further find that the PCRA court has adequately and accurately addressed the issues raised by Appellant in the context of this appeal. For this reason, we adopt the PCRA court’s opinion as our own and direct the parties to include a copy of that opinion with all future filings relating to our disposition of this appeal. Order affirmed. -3- J-S41029-18 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 10/10/18 -4- Circulated 09/19/2018 02:46 PM RECEIVED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AUG 2 42017 FIRST .JUDICIAL DISTRJCT OFPENNSYLV A.NIA CRIMINAL tRJAL DIVISION .. COMMONWEAL TH ()FPE1'iNSYL VANIA . . PORA Unit CP Criminal Listings : CP-5 l-CR-0014368.2012 .: CP 51-CR-0014J69-2012 Y. ROYSCEHAYNES .ORD.ER AND OPINION McDermott, J. Augus(2412017 .Procedural History On September I 0, 20;12, the Petitioner, Roysce Haynes, was arrested and charged with Murder and Abuse ofa Corpse in CP-51-CR.,001436.8-2012, and Criminal Homicide of all Unborn Child in GP-'51-CR-0014369--2012.. On April 30, 2014, after a consolidated trial before this Court, ajury convicted the Petitioner of Third-Degree Murder in CP-5l-CR-0014368-2012 and Criminal Homicide of an Unborn Child in CP-SJ.,.CR-0014369.:2012. On July l , 2014, this Court imposed a sentence of twenty to forty years imprisonment for Third-Degree.Murder and a consecutive fifteen to thirty years for CriminalHomicide ofan Unborn Child, for a total sentence ofthirty-five to seventy years ofimprisonment, The Petitioner appealed and on October 5., 20 l 51 the Superior Court affirmed his. judgment of sentence. On June I, 2016, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied tile Petitioner's Petition for Allowance of Appeal. .,.·· 1. ---· . CP-51-CR-0014366-2012 CQtnm•.v ·Haynes. RO,$CC .tjpinion: APPENDIX - LOWER CPURT O;IN ll ijJJIIIIII ' ··················-·· ··· ··············-··"·"·····--········· ···---···-·--····-··--·------·..·--···-·····------------ ----···-···--·------···-----····-·····-··--··· ·---······--·········· ... ······-··---·-· On September 29, 2016, the Petitioner filed a timefyprd se Pest-Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA ") petition, his first. On May 10, 2017, through .appointed counsel, the. Petitioner filed an Amended Petition. Ori July 12, 2017., the Commonwealth filed its response .. On July 13, 2017,. after independent review, . this Court.found the Petitioner's. claims meritless and issued a . Notice of Intent to Dismiss pursuant to Pa.RiCrim.P. 07. The Petitioner did not respond to this Court's 907 Notice: On direct appeal, the Superior Court summarized the relevant facts .as follows: During lhe afternoon of September 10, 2012, Philadelphia Probation and Parole Officers Shondell Williams and Evan.MooreMathis visited [the Petitioner, Roysce Haynes]. As they approached his apartment, they saw him sitting on the steps outside the apartment entrance. He appeared stunned and was. somewhat · unresponsive to questions. His head was lowered and when· asked whether the. police should be summoned, he said yes. . Philadelphia Police Officer Jonathan Ransom was called to 850 Chelton Avenue in.the Germantown section of Philadelphia. There he encountered· [the Petitioner], who told. him that he had been in an .argurnent with his girlfriend, that the argument had become physical, and that he had choked her. When Officer Ransom went inside [the PetitionerJ's apartment, he saw the decedent AtiyaPerry, lying on the floor and bleeding from the head. She had no signs of life'. Officer Ransom noticed a bloody towel lying onthe floor near her head. . Dr: Marlin Osbourne, Assistant Medical Examiner, performed the autopsy on the decedent and determined that her death was a homicide achieved by strangulation. [The decedent] also had small lacerations on her left cheek. Dr. Osbourne determined. that based on the sizeof.the.fetus in her uterus, shehadbeen pregnantfor seven weeks at the time of herdeath, . . . Detective Edward Tolliver took astatement from [the Petitioner] the day of the killing. In. it, [the Petitioner] acknowledged ki Hing the decedent. He said that the decedent had been. hitting him. with .a closed fist on the side ofhis head and that.she had tried to use pepper spray against him, and that he choked her. He also said that the decedent had told him that she was pregnant; but that he did not believe her. Detective Tracey Byard searched the apartment in the immediate aftermath of the· murder. He did not find any mace or pepper spray anywhere in the. apartment, Prenatal vitamins and magazines about-pregnancy were found in the apartment. Commonwealth v. Haynes, l 25 A.Jd 8.00, 802 (Pa. Super, 2015). Discussion The Petitioner raises a single issue for review, alleging that trial counsel was-ineffective for failing to challenge the admissibility of his confession to. police. Specifically, in his pro se petition, the Petitioner admits that.officers read him his Miranda rights prior to taking his statement, but.argues that Miranda wasvemployedillegally" and was part ofan "accusatory ruse." Petitioner's Pro Se Petition at 6. The Petitioner further alleges that detectives "suggested that[he was] notgetting an attorney." Id. Though the Petitioner merely claims that.trial counsel was. ineffective in his Amended Petition, he goes on to argue, contradictorily.Jn an attached Memorandum of Law1 that "he was.not given his Miranda warnings" and that he "wanted an attorney Jresent at the time he was being questioned but no attorney was· provided, thus rendering the statement something less than knowing, intelligent and voluntary." Petitioner's May I 0, 2017 Memorandum of Law at 6: To warrant relief based on an ineffectiveness claim. a petitioner must show that such ineffectiveness "in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt o:r innocence could have taken place. Commonwealth v. Bardo, l05 A.3.d 678 684. (Pa,.2014); 4.2 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(Z)(ii). Counsel is presumed to have rendered effective assistance. Commonwealth v, Weiss, 81 AJd 767, 783 (Pa. 2013) (cirtne Commonwea/thv.Sepu/v(!da,55A.Jd1108,.l tf7 (P.a. 2012)). To overcome the presumption, the Petitioner has to satisfy the performance and prejudice test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U .S, 668 (1984). The. Supreme Court of I The Petitiener titlc.s. his.Memorandum of Law as a "Letter Brief." Pennsylvania has-applied the ·st rick/and test by looking to three elements, whether (I); the. underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) no reasonable basis existed for counsel's action .. . .. or. • 'failure to - ct;·and (3) the petitioner has shown that. he suffered prejudice asa result of counsel's. lapse, i.e .., (hat there isa reasonable probability that.the result of the proceeding would have been different. Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527'.A.2d 973, 975 (Pa. 1987). Ifa claim faiis under any necessary element ofthe, irickl.a11d!Pierc test, the court may proceed to that. element first, Commonwealth v, Bennett, 57 A.3.d 1185, I I 95....-1196 (Pa.2011.) .. Counsel. will not be.deemed. . ineffective for fai Ung to raise a rneritless .cl aim; Com monwealth ,,.. Rivera, ·1 08 A -,3 d 7:79 ,. 78-9 (Pa. 2014) (citing Commonwealth v. Jones, .. 912 A.id 26a, 278 (Pa. 2006)). In hisMemorandum -oft.aw attached-to his.Amended.. Petition, the ..Petitioner argues that . his statement confessing to stra·n_gling the decedent during a fight would have been suppressed, if challenged, becauselaw enforcement authorities-failed to Mirandize him andprbvide him with an.attorneyprior to the interrogation. ThePetitioner argues thatthe additional evidence presented against himwas weakrendering-trial counsel's failure to challengehighlyprejudicial. Whenapetitioner asserts .ineffective assistance of counsel based upon the failureto pursue a suppression motion, proofof the: merit of the underlying suppression claim is necessary to demonstrate Inetfecnve assistance .. Commonwealth _v: Warley, rsz A.3d l0":34, 1044·.( a. Super. 2016) (cittng Commonwealth' v. Metzger, 441 A:2d 1225, 1228 (Pa Super. l-9S 1)). A waiver of Miranda rights. is· valid.wherethe suspect- is aware of the generalnature of the transaction. giving rise to theinvestigation. Commonwealth. v, Johnson, 160 A}d 127, 1J8 (Pa. 20°1-7). A Petitioner is presumed competent to waive Miranda. rights, and he pears the burden toprove incornpetencebya .preponderance of the evidence. Commonwealih·v..}Vatkins, . J 0.8 A.Jq 692, 703"(Pa. ibM). In deciding whethera confession was involuntary, courts mus! 4· -·----··..··········--- determine whether. the interrogation was so manipulative or coercive that it deprived the petitioner ofhis ability to make. a free. and unconstrained decision. Commonwealth v; Phillstin, 53. A.3d 1, .1 S (Pa. 2012) (citing Commonwealth». Templin, 795 A.2d 959,. 966 (Pa. 2002)}. In his prose petition, the Petitioner claims that the Miranda warning he received was too ambiguous to understand, and that during the course of the interview, police implied that he would notbe able to communicate with an attorney: The Petitioner does not allege anything beyond this. bald assertion. On July 13? 2017,.during argument before this Court, the. Petitioner, through counsel, stated that an evidentiary hearing was necessary so this Court could make a credibility determination between himself and the interrogating.officer. N.T. 7/13/2017 at 4... s. An evidentiary hearing is not meant to function asa fishing expedition for possible evidence that may support a claim. of ineffectiveness. Commonwealth v; Sneed, 45 kJd 1096, l 1J6 (Pa. 2012)(cilingCom.monw q/ih v. Scott, 752 A.2d 871: 877 n, 8 (Pa. 20.0Q)). The fact that there is a possibility, however slim, that this Court could find the police interrogators statement incredible-after an evidentiary hearing is not sufficient to satisfy his burden of proving. ineffec ti veness. Although the Petitioner claims that the warnings were ambiguous, he fails to explain which partof his Miranda waiver was ambiguous or incomprehensible. The Mtrandawarmngs contained in the standard police.form, as read and signed by the Petitioner, meets the constitutional standards necessary to evidence the Petitioner's waiver of'his rights. The' form clearly and unequivocally explained that thePetitioner had the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the rightto stopthe interrogation at any time. See Commonwealth's Trial Exhibit C-12. This evidence shows thatthe Petitioner elected to. speak to detectives Without an attorney present. The evidence presented at trial indicates that the Petitioner wasproperly Mirandized and was aware of, but failed to invoke, his rightto counsel. Detective Edward Tolliverinterviewed thf Petitioneron September 10, :2,012 arid waspresentwhen the Petitioner reviewed.answered, and signed a written Miranda waiver form. Tolliver testified that, on the Miranda waiver form, the Petitioner indicated that he knew of his right to. remain silent, that he did. not wish to express that right, that he did not want to speak to a.lawyer despite his constitutional right to do so, .and thathe answered each question of'h is own free will, wi tho tit any threats or promises having been made to him. N:T. 4/29/2014 at 142,..149; s e Commonwealth's TrialExhibit C-12, attached as «Ex.hibit A.'" Detective Tolliver observed the Petitioner write hisinitials nextto each question on the waiver form, sign each ()age of his. statement, and attest that the facts set forth in his statement were true. Id. at.l 43-147: According to Detective Tolliver; the Petitioner willingly continued to communicate with detectives after being read his rights. Id. at 171--1'72·. The Amended Petit ion and its attached Memorandum of Law fail ta develop these allegations further. Instead: the Petitioner claims that Detectives never gave the Petitioner. Miranda warnings, despite thePetitioner's contrary assertion in his prose petition. Further, while the Petitioner states that he wanted an attorney but was never provided one, he fails to explicitly assert that he. ever invoked his right to an attorney, or thatpolice detectives denied him access to an attorney after such and invocation, These bald, contradictory cJaims fail to sufficiently raise the issue that detectives didnot provide proper Miranda warnings or that the Petitioner invoked, and was denied, his right to counsel. The Petitioner's claim is too underdeveloped to warrant an evidentiary hearing; · The Petitioner cannot demonstrate prejudice, as even if this Court had suppressed bis police statement; the evidence contained therein would have been.presented to the.jury. The 6 contents of the Petitioner' s police statement were .corrsborated by Officer Ransom's testimony; which recounted. the Petitioner's spontaneous, non-custodial.admission that he choked the decedent after ari argument between the.two became physical. N.T.4/29/2014 at36. Officer Ransom discovered the. decedent's body inside the Petitioner's home. Id. at 37; Officer Ransom's testimony alone was sufficient to establish that the Petitioner strangled the decedent to death: Finally, trial counsel had a strategic reason to employ the Petitioner's statement, as it provided the foundation for his manslaughter defense, which the i.fry ultimately rejected. Id at 199-200; N'.T. 4/30/2014 at 28,31-32, 36-37, 41-43. The Petitioner's claim is meritless, For the foregoing reasons; the petition is hereby DISMISSED -. The Petitioner is hereby: notified that he has thirty (30) days from .the date of this Order and Opinion tofile an appeal with the Superior Court. BY THE COURT Barbara-A. McDermott, J. 7 ·-------·····-····----·"""'"·······-.. · -·-···..···-·---··-
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.
