Com. v. Moffatt, D. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S83033-18 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DOMINIQUE LEE MOFFATT, Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 900 WDA 2018 Appeal from the PCRA Order May 30, 2018 in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0000046-2014 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED MARCH 15, 2019 Dominique Lee Moffatt (“Moffatt”) appeals from the Order dismissing his second Petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 We affirm. The PCRA court set forth the relevant factual and procedural history as follows: The case concerns a robbery by [Moffatt], and his coconspirators, Michael Toran [(“Toran”)] and Eric Akins [(“Akins”)], of Barbato’s Restaurant on West Sixth Street in Erie, Pennsylvania on October 5, 2013. On November 12, 2014, following a two-day jury trial, [Moffatt] was convicted of [robbery, criminal conspiracy to commit robbery, terroristic threats, two counts of recklessly endangering another person, and receiving stolen property2]. ____________________________________________ 1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. 2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701(a), 903(a), 2706(a), 2705, 3925(a). J-S83033-18 On January 27, 2015, [Moffatt] was sentenced to an aggregate of 12 to 24 years of incarceration. On January 28, 2015, in response to a Motion to Modify and/or Reconsider Sentencing, the [trial court] modified the sentence to an aggregate of 10 to 20 years of incarceration. On October 29, 2015, [Moffatt], pro se, filed a Petition for [PCRA] relief. Attorney William Hathaway [(“Attorney Hathaway”)] was appointed as PCRA counsel. In the Supplement to [the PCRA Petition] filed January 28, 2016, PCRA counsel requested reinstatement of [Moffatt’s] right to file a post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc, and an appeal nunc pro tunc from the judgment of sentence. On April 28, 2016, the [c]ourt granted the PCRA [Petition]. On May 31, 2016, Attorney Hathaway filed a Motion for New Trial and/or Arrest of Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc, challenging the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. The [c]ourt denied the post-sentence [M]otion on June 2, 2016. Attorney Hathaway timely filed a Notice of Appeal and a court-ordered [Pa.R.A.P.] 1925(b) Statement. In the 1925(b) Statement, [Moffatt] generally challenged the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. In the [Pa.R.A.P.] 1925(a) Opinion, the [c]ourt found the sufficiency and weight claims were waived as vague. On direct appeal, [this] Court agreed [that] the appellate claims were waived as too vague to allow for proper review and analysis of the issues. Accordingly, on April 12, 2017, [this] Court affirmed the judgment of sentence without reaching the merits of the issues presented. On August 29, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied [Moffatt’s] Petition for Allowance of Appeal. On October 30, 2018, [Moffatt] filed a [second] pro se PCRA [Petition3] alleging a violation of the Constitution of Pennsylvania or the Constitution or laws of the United States, ineffective assistance of counsel, improper obstruction by Commonwealth officials of [Moffatt’s] right to appeal, and the imposition of an ____________________________________________ As a result of the reinstatement of his direct appeal rights, Moffatt’s judgment of sentence became final on November 29, 2017, at the conclusion of the ninety-day period during which Moffatt could have sought review by the United States Supreme Court. Thus, Moffatt’s second Petition was timely filed under the PCRA. 3 -2- J-S83033-18 illegal sentence by checking off boxes on the PCRA form [P]etition. In support of the claims, [Moffatt], pro se, asserted his sentence was harsh [] and the convictions were based upon inconsistent testimony of Commonwealth witnesses. On November 13, 2017, the [c]ourt appointed Attorney Michael Harmon [(“Attorney Harmon”)] as PCRA counsel. On December 13, 2017, Attorney Harmon filed a “no-merit” letter and a Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel. Attorney Harmon advised [that] the legality of the sentence claim was without merit. Attorney Harmon acknowledged [that Moffatt] received a prior record score of “refel” [sic] due to prior adjudications as a minor, and the guidelines were calculated under the deadly weapon enhancement. Attorney Harmon further noted the sentences [for robbery and terroristic threats] were within the standard range of the sentencing guidelines.... On January 24, 2018, Attorney Harmon filed an Amended [PCRA Petition challenging the effectiveness of Attorney Hathaway.] PCRA Court Notice of Intent to Dismiss Pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, 5/4/18, 1-4 (internal citations and footnotes omitted, footnotes added). On May 30, 2018, the PCRA court denied Attorney Harmon’s Petition for Leave to withdraw and dismissed Moffatt’s second PCRA Petition. Thereafter, Moffatt filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement. On appeal, Moffatt raises the following issues for our review: 1. Whether [Attorney Hathaway] was ineffective in failing to properly preserve [Moffatt’s] challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence regarding his criminal conviction in the abovecaptioned matter[,] as [Moffatt] was not identified by any witness at the crime scene as being one of the alleged perpetrators; the Commonwealth did not present any forensic evidence that would establish that [Moffatt] was a perpetrator at the scene of the crime; and[] the only evidence presented by the Commonwealth to establish that [Moffatt] was at the -3- J-S83033-18 scene of the crime was testimony from a previously[-]recorded interview of an alleged accomplice[,] who later recanted said statement at the time of trial[?] 2. Whether [Attorney Hathaway] was ineffective in failing to properly preserve [Moffatt’s] challenge to the weight of the evidence regarding his criminal conviction in the abovecaptioned matter[,] as [Moffatt] was not identified by any witness at the crime scene as being one of the alleged perpetrators; the Commonwealth did not present any forensic evidence that would establish that [Moffatt] was a perpetrator at the scene of the crime; and[] the only evidence presented by the Commonwealth to establish that [Moffatt] was at the scene of the crime was testimony from a previously[-]recorded interview of an alleged accomplice[,] who later recanted said statement at the time of trial[?] Brief for Appellant at 7. Our standard of review regarding an order dismissing a PCRA petition is whether the determination of the PCRA court is supported by the evidence of record and is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 17 A.3d 417, 420 (Pa. Super. 2011). “The PCRA court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in the certified record.” Id. To be eligible for relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a PCRA petitioner must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) the underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) no reasonable basis existed for counsel’s action or omission; and (3) there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different absent such error. Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244, 260 (Pa. 2011). “A PCRA petitioner must address each of these prongs Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 177 A.3d 136, 144 (Pa. 2018). -4- on appeal.” J-S83033-18 In both issues presented on appeal, Moffatt claims that Attorney Hathaway rendered ineffective assistance by failing to preserve his challenges to the sufficiency and weight of evidence presented at trial. Brief for Appellant at 12, 20. Moffatt’s argument fails to address both the second and third prongs of an effectiveness claim. Instead, Moffatt essentially recycles the substantive portions of his arguments from his direct appeal, which issues were dismissed for vagueness. See id. at 18-19, 22-23; see also Commonwealth v. Moffatt, 997 WDA 2016 (Pa. Super. 2017) (unpublished memorandum at 5-8). It is not the role of this Court to generate Moffatt’s arguments for him. “When an appellant fails to meaningfully discuss each of the three ineffectiveness prongs, he is not entitled to relief, and we are constrained to find such claims waived for lack of development.” Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 804 (Pa. 2014) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, both of Moffatt’s claims are waived. Even if Moffatt’s claims were not waived, Moffatt still would not have prevailed, as “counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a [] claim [that is without merit].” Id. at 804. In both instances, Moffatt has failed to prove that the underlying claims are of arguable merit, let alone that -5- J-S83033-18 he was prejudiced as a result of Attorney Hathaway’s failure to preserve the same.4 See Spotz, supra. In addressing the arguable merit to Moffatt’s claims, we observe that Moffatt’s underlying sufficiency challenge relies on a lack of forensic evidence, the absence of eye-witness testimony specifically implicating him, and an alleged recanting of co-conspirator Akins’s incriminating statement made to police. Brief for Appellant at 18-19. In assessing [a] sufficiency challenge, we must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, the trier of fact could have found that the Commonwealth proved each element of the crime[s] beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence need not preclude every possibility of innocence and the fact-finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented. Commonwealth v. Giron, 155 A.3d 635, 638 (Pa. Super. 2017) (internal quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted). “The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proof by means of wholly circumstantial evidence, and the jury, which passes upon the weight and credibility of each witness’s testimony, is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Ramtahal, 33 A.3d 602, 607 (Pa. 2011). ____________________________________________ We note that “unsupported speculation” does not establish a reasonable probability that the outcome of trial would have been different. Commonwealth v. Charleston, 94 A.3d 1012, 1026 (Pa. Super. 2014). Here, Moffatt fails to offer even unsupported speculation that he was prejudiced by Attorney Hathaway’s actions or omissions. 4 -6- J-S83033-18 Regarding Moffatt’s first claim, the PCRA court set forth the relevant law, addressed Moffatt’s claim, and concluded that it lacks merit. See PCRA Court Notice of Intent to Dismiss, 5/4/18, 8-20. Upon our review of the record, we agree with and adopt the sound reasoning of the PCRA court in determining that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to prove every element of the crimes for which Moffatt was convicted. See id. Thus, we discern no arguable merit to Moffatt’s claims, and are unable to afford him relief on this basis. Moffatt also challenges Attorney Hathaway’s failure to preserve his claim that the verdicts are against the weight of the evidence. Again, Moffatt avers that a lack of forensic evidence, the absence of eye-witness testimony specifically implicating him, and an alleged recantation of co-conspirator Akins’s incriminating statement made to police necessarily undermine the jury’s verdicts. Brief for Appellant at 22-23. Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence … an appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial judge when reviewing a trial court's determination that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. One of the least assailable reasons for granting or denying a new trial is the lower court's conviction that the verdict was or was not against the weight of the evidence and that a new trial should be granted in the interest of justice. Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). -7- J-S83033-18 The jury was free to believe any portion of Akins’s testimony, including the recorded confession implicating Moffatt, as well as his testimony at trial whereby he confirmed that his guilty plea specifically named Moffatt as an accomplice. See N.T., 11/12/14, at 13. The jury was also free to reject any portion of Akins’s testimony, including his testimony at trial where he stated that he was “coached” to implicate Moffatt, did not understand that Moffatt was implicated by his guilty plea, and/or was “high” when he spoke to police. See id. at 14, 17-18, 28. As Moffatt points out, testimonial evidence provided the basis for his convictions. See Brief for Appellant at 22-23. As credibility determinations fall within the exclusive province of the jury, see Ramtahal, supra, we fail to discern from the record any arguable merit to Moffatt’s claims and conclude that he is not entitled to relief. See Commonwealth v. McClure, 144 A.3d 970, 977 (Pa. Super. 2016) (holding that it is an encroachment upon the province of the jury to manipulate its discretion in determining credibility). Based upon the foregoing, we find that the PCRA court’s determination was supported by the record and free of legal error. As such, we affirm the PCRA court’s dismissal of Moffatt’s second PCRA Petition. Order affirmed. -8- J-S83033-18 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 3/15/2019 -9- p L i I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ! CRIMINAL DIVISION v. i DOMINIQUE LEE MOFFATT, PETITIONER .!I, NO. 46 of2014 !! ' --- S?- ',..-,\ , NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS PCRA PURSUANT TO PA.R.CRIM.P. 907 ,J AND NOW, to-wit, this -c.. VI (; .-n ,,-f, c.:> -s, · i, · v \ of e ':. --.'o'<.-, - day of May, 2018, after an independent v :\ <J)l';2.>1 ,n.....- , r ! c.?,, ....1 r ·o1 i. ..... 1 c...,) record, consideration of Petitioner's pro se Motion for Post Conviction CollaterafcR.@,ef fil -· u• i :;.:.· ? d) October 30, 2017, the "no-merit" letter of PCRA counsel filed December 13, 2017, and the a !j, J• J i I Amended Petition for Post-Conviction Relief filed by PCRA counsel on January 24, 2018, this Court finds no relief is due. Because Petitioner's claims in the pro se PCRA Motion and Amended PCRA can be addressed based upon the existing record, there is no need for an i \, l ' \ evidentiary hearing on the underlying claims. FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. The. case concerns a robbery by Appellant, Dominique Lee Moffatt, and his coconspirators, Michael Toran and Eric Akins, of Barbato's Restaurant on West Sixth Street in Erie, Pennsylvania on October 5, 2013.1 1, On 'November 12, 2014, following a two-day jury trial, Appellant, was convicted of I Count One - Robbery, Count Two - Criminal Conspiracy (to commit Robbery), Count Three - ..i I ! I I 1 At Erie County Docket No. 47 of 2014, Co-defendant Michael Toran was convicted of Robbery, Criminal Conspiracy (to commit Robbery), Recklessly Endangering Another Person (Jodi Deickhoff), Theft By Unlawful Taking, Receiving Stolen Property, and Recklessly Endangering Another Person (Lisa Gorton). At Erie County Docket No. 39 of 2014, co-conspirator Eric Akins pied guilty to Criminal Conspiracy (to commit Robbery). 1 Circulated 02/15/2019 04:04 PM !I· I I i Terroristic Threats, Count Four - Recklessly Endangering Another Person (Lisa Gorton). Count Five - Recklessly Endangering Another Person (Jodi Deickhoff), and Count Seven - Receiving Stolen Property .2 On January 27, 2015, Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate of 12 to 24 years of incarceration. Transcript of Sentencing Proceedings, January 27, 2015 (Tr. Sentencing, 1/27/15), pp. 12-13. On January 28, 2015, in response to a Motion to Modify and/or Reconsider Sentencing, the Court modified the sentence to an aggregate of 10 to 20 years of incarceration. On October 29, 2015, Appellant, pro se, filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief. Attorney William Hathaway was appointed as PCRA counsel. In the Supplement to . I I l li i \. i I l I I \ Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief filed January 28, 2016, PCRA counsel requested \ l i reinstatement of Appellant's right to file a post-sentence motion nunc pro tune, and an appeal nunc pro tune from the judgment of sentence. On April 28, 2016, the Court granted the PCRA motion. On May 31, 2016, Attorney Hathaway filed a Motion for New Trial and/or Arrest of Judgment Nunc Pro Tune, challenging the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. The Court denied the post-sentence motion on June 2, 2016. Attorney Hathaway timely filed a Notice of !\ I I \ I! l i !, i ! Appeal and a court-ordered l 925(b) Statement. In the 1925(b) Statement, Appellant generally challenged the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. In the 1925 (a) Opinion, the Court found the sufficiency and weight claims were waived as vague. See Trial Court Opinion, September i i I I \ 12, 2016, pp. 2-3. I On direct appeal, the Superior Court agreed the appellate claims were waived as too j I ! vague to allow for proper review and analysis of the issues. See Commonwealth v. Moffatt, i- Unpublished Memorandum filed April 12, 2017 at 997 WDA 2016, pp. 5, 8. Accordingly, on 2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§370l(a)(l)(ii), 903(a), 2706(a)(l), 2705 (two counts) and 3925(a), respectively. 2 i I ·aa.nu pua auo SlUUO:) lB scouaiucs aqi ql!M pa'.a1aur (,(µado1d UatOlS '.EU!A!a::Ja"}I) UaAaS lUUO:) JB posodun aouoiucs aql 'aUQ lUUO:) ql!M pa'.a1aur ( JJOlj)ppQ !POf-dV'.31I) aA!.!J pUB '( uoµoo tisn: -dV'.31I) mo1 '(A.Iaqqo /A::lBJ!dsuo:) {BU!UIP:J) OMl siuno:) lB posodun sootrciuos aqi '(A.Iaqqo ) auo iuno:) lB a::iuaiuas aql oi aA!ln::iasuo::i SBM (sitiaiqi ousuoncj) aa1qi iuno:) lB posodun eouciues aqi " '806!§ vso>« I '(!)£ I a1ng KJ ·dns Sil 'aas ·1oiB:>Ol[B pa!uap B!UBA{ASUUadJO µno:) ourardng aqi 1ayB SABp 'a 1aquraAON. 'ABpuow uo {BUIJ ouraooq jo oouaiucs JO iuaur'.apnf IOZ: 'a AJBnUBf s,1auo99ad s (06) ,(iau!u 'L IOZ: ·\ l ! ! l i i ! I l I' I i i i \ i I ! ! ·! i i l I ·i l /L !OZ 1VM Z8 I JV L !OZ '6Z JSn2nvJo J.oplQ { l I i U1V!J.1Z:) I l I ! I l ,j I ! i l I I ,! aA01d puu pua1d oi S! 1fopuaiuas oi prnaa1 l[l!M. pna1 JO S!suq ojos aqi 'V1!:)d aqi 1apun ,:pa::maiuas All[SlUl[,, SUM. Gt[ 'SUO!P!AUO U!M.OIIOJ ; i l ,I ! i i NOISSil:JSIO I I I i I I 'l 'I l 'i i I I I I ,! i ! ! I ·a UGP!AG Gl[lJO ll[2l!GM. Gl[l oi G23UGffBl[ s,lGUO!l!lGd MG!AGl GJ\lGSGld or 23U!{!UJ lOJ GA!PGJJGU! SUM {GSUUO GlUIIGddu lGl[lGl[J\\ ptra :a UGP!AG Gl[lJO A uapmns Gl[l oi G UGIIUl[ S,lGUO!l!lGd MG!AGl GJ\lGSGld oi 2llJ!EUJ lOJ GA!l GJJGU! SUM. [osuuoo GlUff}ddu lGl[lGl[J\\ · 1 aiunaddu ·z: GlUIIGddu lOJ lOJ ,1 I! i 'I ' I 1 i I I I ·I l I :(8861 "t?d) 81 'zt rzv 9vS 5 's.1.at1.aa '(\_ l,fJ]DoM.UOUI.UI.O:J aas ·n-or ·dd '2U!.I.DoH 2upua1uas I ,l 1 ! ·l l I j I I ;i , .. ljJfDoM.UOUI.UI.O:J '(Z86 I ·1 dns "t?d) 8 I zt rzv I vv 'o;J.l.o!J "(\_ ljJ/VoM.UOUI.UI.O:J .'(v) [ U6§ vs» "VJ 1 I j I I i! ! ! I I il i I I "[ t-o I :1 'dd '(2U!.I.DoH 2upuaJuas ·.1.J) s IOZ I l ; li l I I d I ! ! i I l I I ! l t 'I Ii ! 'i I ! 9 li .\ ! ! I l ·i l I I ;:iiun;:iddu lOJ ·;:i::,u;:ip!A;:i ;:il{lJO ll{g!;:iM ;:iq:l oi ;:igu;:ilIUl{::> S,J;:iUO!l!l;:id M;:i!A;:iJ ;:iAJ;:is;:i1d oi gU!HUJ JOJ ;:iA!l::>;:iJpU! SUM [ostmoo ;:iiuu;:iddu 1;:iq:i;:il{A\ ·17 pue '.g::,u;:ip!Ad dl{l JO A:)U;:ipy:JnS ;:iq:i oi ;:igu;:inuq:::, s ,J;:iUO!l!lgd Md!Adl ;:iiu1pddu JOJ ;:iAJ;:is;:i1d oi gumuJ 10J ;:iA!l::>;:iJJ;:iU! suM [ostmoo ;:iiu1pddu 1;:iq:i;:ilIA\ ·£ I Ii I l I I I i ,·,,: I I l I i l- i I \ l' L i I '! ! !i I j ! ! 'l ! ! i i l SUO!P!AUO::) aqJ aroddng 011ua!JYJUS suM_ aJuap!A:iJ: asnuJag pa.1.1nJJO aJ!pnfa.1J ON ! I ·z I I ;\ ! I i ! :! Il II I ·i I ·i nrr uoaq ;:)ABt( S15UOJd OMl is1y gt{l Jgt{lgt(M JO uotretmnroicp B inot[l!M 'guo1B S!SBq lBt(l uo lli!BP gt{l JO osodstp ABW unoo gt{l '1!uo1d corpnfcrd gt{l ioour oi pgHBJ SBt( [rououucd] lBt(l JBgp S! l! U;:)t(A\ ·p1BpUBlS SS;:)U;:)A!l:'.>;:)JJ;:)U! S, B!U-BA1ASUU;:)d roptrn AJBSsg::,gu S! t{:'.>!t(M cotpnford onsmbor ;:)t{l oransuourap or SUBJ ;:)t{ J! J;:)!Pl oi popnuo lOU S! [rououuod] 'ponsrnd ionpuoo JO osmoo gt{l JOJ S!SBq giqBuosBgJ ou pBt( [osunoo J! ugAg 1 I. l ! I I I 'I i 1 ii I I. l Il l i i ! ' ·,! Cl i "(600Z "Bd) zcs '£Z pz;·v 996 ,;1guo!mgd gt{l .i(q 1JU!MOt(S iug!::,mns B uodn ;:)A!P;:)JJ;:)U! 'UOSUl,fO[' "(\_ lf.JJVoMUOUI.UI.O:J potnasp oq .i(1uo H!M psuno::, pUB 8 i I I l .·,1 I ; l i I I i I I I 'I I i i I I! lI 8 01 'L OI pz;·v 8£6 'uosuruq "(\.. '11.JJVoM.UOUJ.UI.O:J :(pa»!UIO SUO!lBlP p Ul;;)lll!)(oooz: "Bd) 'I J l I 8 1 ' I I q ! l! I I dI rz'v 09l 'ptnuep [neddt: xocoz ·1adns·Bd) zz 'oz; P£"V tl 'otl..V.iJJ.J.VH "(\.. "ljJ/VoM.UOUJ.UI.O:J 6 lO :gW!l::> lpns l!WWO::> oi UO!lBl!::>!{OS idurona un .ro ounro lpns soiruusuoo l{:l!l{M ionpuoo U! a'au'aua mM waqi JO orom 10 ouo 10 Aal{l lUl{l suosrod 10 uosrcd roqio qons l{l!M saa1'au ( I) 10 l :gq UO!SS!WWO:l Sp 'aU!lUl!lPUJ lO 'auqowo1d JO lUglU! al{l l{l!M J! aUI!l::> u l!UIWO::> oi strosrod 10 uosrod 1aqiouu l{l!M A:lU1IdSUO:l JO Al{!Il'a SI trosrod v7--·km.1!dSUOJ JO uomuyao (e) ! ,l l I ! . 'i Ii 1 · '! i l l I i I I 'I : iI I "IOL£ § ·ys·:J "Bd 81 i l ! ·1 j I ! l i I I ·i ! ! I I Il ·1 I ! JOa1gql uonrunstn 1upuuuy aqi oxudop oi iuaiu! aqi l{l!M 'aU!l!lM U! 10 AHUlO uonruustn IB!::>uuuy aqi JO aaA01dma us JO puuwap u 'aUPf8UI Aq uourunstn IB!::>uuuy aqi JO UO!SS!Ullad aqi lilOl{l!M uonmnsut IB!::>UUU!J B JO Aauow aqi soxourcr 10 sa){Bi (!A) 10 :iq'a!IS laAaMOl{ a::,10J Aq rotpoua JO uosrod aqi UIO.IJ Aµado1d scxouror 10 sa){Bl AHB:l!SAqd (A) :Amfu! Al!poq aiu!pgww! JO maJ U! UI!l{ smd Al{BUO!iuaiu! 10 l{l!M raqioue suaiuall(i 10 roqioua uodn Amfu! Al!poq Sl:l!lJU! (A!) :aa1'aap ptrooos 10 is1y aqi JO AuopJ Aun l!WWO::> oi A{alB!paww! suorearqi 10 Sl!UlUIO::> (!!!) :AmfU! Agpoq sno!1as . glB!pgww! JO maJ U! UI!l{ smd AHBUO!lUalU! 10 l{l!M roqioua suorearqi (!!) '.1gqiouu uodn Amfu! Al!Poq sno!Jgs SP!IJU! (!) :aq 'yal{l u 'aU!U!UlUIO::> JO csrnoo aqi U! 'J! A1aqqo1 JO All!U'a S! uosrod v ( I) Ot aql,, 'SlBall{l !lS"!JOllal JO llmpuapp B P!AUO 0.1 i ,! czrrorrci oi waiu! l{l!M aJug1o!A JO gruµJ Alm l!UIUIOJ .90ll § ·ys·:) ·-ed 81 'V!fV .1.aJUJ oi lBgll{l B 'l1pg1!PU! 10 AJl gl!P l ·iI ! Il ·g-eJ ll{'a!UI gUOJB lOPBJ ouo gJgl{M iqnop g1quuos-ea1 -e puoxoq iuarug;n'aB JB!JOlBl!dsuoJ B l{S!JqBlsg oi a sa1-eo luru SlOPBJ asgq.1 ";Jpos!d;J [UU!UIPJ ;JqJ u!puno.1.ms S;J!J.IUd I ·I! i ;JqJ JO ronpnoo puu s;JJUUJsmnJ.1p ;JqJ pun 'ampJ aqJ «! uonudpn.1ud pnn JO ;J p;JJMOID{ 's;Jn.1ud ;JqJ U;J;JMJ;Jq UO!JU[;J.I ;JqJ 'oJ p;JJ!UIH JOU mq ' U!PilIJU! S;}JUUJSUIIlJ.l!J JO AJ;J!.IUA U UIO.lj p;J.1.I;JJU! aq U"EJ JU;JUI;J;J.I u u]u] :A'.uunomppy ·lqnop gyq-euosBg1 B puoxoq A Bl!dsuo pg'agIIB gql oi posnooa dl{l 'auprun gJuap!Ag JO qaM B oraoro ABUI pnpuo qons 'au!punollns sa UBlSUIIlJl! aqi pill? soured aqi JO ionpuoo l ! 1 I I I al{.1 ;l ! ! ' i l l l l . A t?l!dsuo al{l JO JOOld optxord ABUI g uap!Ad IB!llIBlSUIU l!:) ·,( Bl!dsuo gqlJO gJUB1aqµt1J U! auop SBM PB µgAQ UB (£ pill? :iugiu! JBU!Ul!l porsqs B l{l!M (z :suos1;;id lO trosrod roqiotre l{l!M PB JUJMBJUU UB U! P!B JO l!UIUIO or iuarua;;i1'a-e ill? OlU! porcnra ( I :iUBpU;;JJ;;JP al{l qsqqaiso lSUUI l{lJBgMUOUIUIO:) gl{l 'AJBl!dSUOJ JBU!Ul!l lOJ UO!P!AUO B U!BlSUS 0.1 I ·l i ·1al{lOlIB 'ounro l{JUS l!UIUIO oi UO!lBlP!JOS 10 idtnoua UB JO 10 ;;JUI!l l{JUS JO UO!SS!UIUIO 10 'aU!UUBJd ;;iqi u! suosrod 10 uosrod 1gqio qons P!B oi saa1'a-e (z) tr j ! .I I,;. " --q QUI lB ){OOJ i, uop,, pue "QAOUI 1 'l l i i I I i ,j I !POf) uos.1aJ .1aqJouv upa ucpu3: AfssappalJ: {JJOtp{J!aQ :aA!A Juno:> csr1) nos.lad .1aqJonv upa ucpu3: A1ssappal{ (uopo :.1noa Juno:> ·i, 's i i I i I I I ,I ! 1 I "881 I 1 l l lB pz;·y 9l6 'JJOUUJS "A "UlO:J "lOllQl 3U!SilB:) JO )(S!J Ql[l lOJ pXB3QlS!P SSQPl:)Ql UQAg SM.Ol[S g::,ugp!Ag gqi SB 3uo1 OS pgl[S!NBlSQ QJB QSUQJJO Ql[l JO SlUQUIQig Ql[l Ul!P!A S!l{ l ;J ! ezuorroi j 1789 '"-uZJl I i plB'agJS!P SSQJ)(:)QJ l[l!M. Jo I 'g::,ugJO!A JO QUI!J::, B l!UIUIO::, or :J.BQll[l B .i oi lUQlU! ::,m::,gds Ql{l "A "UIO:) ZlU!lOilb roqraq '8811 iou pocu lB pz:·y 9l6 lliBPUQJQP Ql{J, "(9661 ·1gdnS"Bd) 009 'L6<; pz:·v 'JJOUUJS "A "UIO:) ,;lOllQl ZlU!SilB:) JO ){S!J Ql{l lOJ roqiotre ozuorrci oi iugiu! gqi l{l!M. poreonrnumroo SBM. lBQll[l gql (z; pUB l I t ,I ! opeur nraptrojop gql ( I lBl{l oxord isnur l[lJBQM.UOUIUIOJ ·l I I; •(,u;}qqo1:1 l!WWO::l oi) A::lt?l!dSUO:) {BU!W!J:) oi AlJ!n'a pord sup1v ::l!l'.3: rorandsuoo-oo 'vIQz:JO 6£ 'ON l;})j::lOQ AlUnO:) ;}!l'.3: lV ·(uoµOD nsn) UOSJ;}d J;}qlOUV 'aupa'aunpug A{SS;}{)j::l::l1:I pun 'AµadOld U;}{OlS 'aU!A!;}::l::l1:I ''all!)jn,L {llJMB(UD AS: :1pq.1 '(JJOq)j::l!;}Q !POf) uosro.] J;}qiouv 'aup;}'auepug AJSS;}()j::l:}1:1 '(,uaqqo1:1 nunuoo oi) A::lnJ!dSUO:) 1eu!w!1:::> ',uaqqo1:1 JO poiotxuoo snM un10.1 1:}nq:>!W iuepU;}J;}p-o;) 'vIOZ JO lv ·oN l;})[:>OQ t<:iuno;::> ap3: lV 9 I ·i ·910z; VG.A\ L66 in L IOZ 'zt J!ldy parn uo!S!::l;}Q 1n9uapa::,a1d-UON :i.mo:::> rouodng aqi U! poztraununs osja S! oouoptxo ;}qJ, s I ptre J:mon.!lad 'sap:?ur )[:JU{q rsqio O.Ml ggq.M. s, oiuqmg ap!sino pgu!uurgJ sup[V :J!}3: ! i ·u!gJaq ·j ! ; . i I I \ I I ·, 1 ! i I l I ! · ,,(µ;;,doJd ;;,qi JO ,,(i!m:J;;is ;;,qi uo u!pu;;,1 JO ';;,mi Jo 10Jiuo:J 'uotssossod U!J!nb:JB SUB;;>UI ):!U!A!;;):J;;)J,, PJO.M. aqi uonoos S!qi U! posn sv -·uo!i!liy:aa ( q) 'I i ·J;;iU.Mo aq:i oi l! gJQ:).SaJ oi :).Ug:J.U! l{l!M posodsrp ro 'pouraior 'paA!a:J;}l S! AµadoJd aqi ssopm 'ua10:is uaaq AiquqoJd SBl[ l! lBql U!Aanaq JO 'ua1ois uooq suq l! :J.Bql U!MOU)[ roqtotre JO Aµ;;,d01d ;}{qBAOUI JO sosodsrp JO 'SU!Bi;;i1 'saA!a:JaJ AIIBUO!lU::>lU! aq J! :ipqi JO All!n S! uosrod v-·p;;iug:::>p ;;isuaJJo (B) \ I I I i ! i j I 'i I I j i i ! i.I i ! I I 'I I ' l I I i ;! ! I ! j I ! l "8 [ ·d (fr uz [/[ r ·.IJ) fr IO'c "{ [ .1.aqw.a11.0N 's2u1paa;io.1.J Jo JdJ.J;JSUV.LL I ! . : 'l; i I tl ! ·! I ! ! ! 'fr l/0 Ill I ·.1.L ·UM.op )[OOI oi roq pcropro puq g1uw 1gnul gql sn ipsop UI!l[ lU )IOOI lOU P!P uoµoo I lnq 'IglS! faI gql poqoaorddn µ!l[SlUgM.s ig1'.iJ gql l(l!M. g1uw rouoqs gq1, j Jgq IOJ pg1ugJ OS{U JJ01PI !ga "'{fr 'Ot: ·dd ,, l l "8[-L[ \ ! 1u1n'.Bg1 u JO AlgJus gql j i l 101 'ruotrtt -aa 'fr l/0 [/[[ pus 'gJ!l Igq IOJ pgmgJ uouorj atnraptraq gn1q u puq puu µ!qsiugM.s gniq ' i I I II I ,j I i' I "fr[ 'i: ".JJ, ,:--q 'gm re ){00{ i,uoa,, 'JJ01PI !ga ".JJ, ·wgsgJd osp:?SUM. Ol[M. 'JJOtpI pa !PO[ 'JgUIOlSn pun µ;qslugM.s i(gJ'.B u gmM. g1uw rouoqs gq1, ·l I 'frl ·dd 'frl/Ol/[ I ".LL ·ofr 'd 'fr [!0 [/[ [ ·.1J, ·gJ!l B - [ ·rr »z-s: 'i: 'tt 'dd 's: 'dd »uom I ".JJ, ·sgA01'.B 'fr l/0 [/[ [ ·.1J, ·g uJ S!lf ptmora · gJoM. 'un u puq g1uw 1gnui gqi pgIJ:!lSgl uoµoo ,:k:mow 'aU!.d [gqi] nu,, tnoqi gA!'a oi uoµoo poionnsm scpmr gqlJO guo "fr'{-'{'{ ·dd '(fr l/0 [/[[ ·.1.J) riot 'o I .1aqw.aAON 's2u1paa;JO.I.J Jo JdJ.i;JSUV.1.J, ·ggio1dwg l' l :mI!l lUBAap1 ;)l{l lV "8fr -d 'fr I/0 Ill I ·.1.1, ·iuap! U! aqi JO orep aqi uo lUB1IlBlS;)1l s.oreqreq JO ' Ii gaiC01drua UB SBM Ol{M. 1gig1g: puoruiCB1I JO iCuoruqsgi gql poiuosord qw gM.UOllilliO;) aqi ! .1aJa.1g puomARH ·1 rr-zr 'e: 'tz-o: '8[ '9[-L l ! i i i i I l I 'I I I I l I l ·1 I ! ·dd'frI!lI/ll s,: i I I I .l I ' ! I! I ,i ! i I l I i . il i I I i I 'l I! ,J I i i l1 I l '! 1 '68 'L8-98 -aa »uotrn -: i 'i i i 'l I !l 'Or 'd 'fr l/l [/[ [ '.l.J, ,'80 [ -d 'fr l/0 [I[ [ '.l.J, : 'l:;'.IA{OA:;'.11 :;'.II{:). U! S2U!Stl mods I ! :;:,2uynourn tl II 'I i ! i < I I ·I l l Il ·1 ! ptra J:;'.IA{OA:;'.11 z:z:· t3 JO UO!SS:;'.ISSod U! SBM trarol 'cum lBI{l lV '88-L8 'dd 'fr l/0 [/ l l ! I ! i I I ·1 l l I I ,j l I i li i ·1 ! "fL-OL ·dd frl/Ol/ll ·.1.1, ;l I . l i ! 1 I Il I I I 'I ! i l ! ! I I I ·,1 j 1 fr-9 £ 'dd 'fr l/Z II [[ ·.1.1, ·un'aptrnq -e 81: 'rcuroisno gql ptre UOllOD pauoiaorqi UBJOJ, put? JgUO!l!lgd '1gq1g80l lBql saqsqqmso A{lUgpYJilS i =u ·1guO!lHdd qw,:\. iuamaisar dl{l porcuro oqM UBJOJ, urepuajop-oo ql!M ptm 'gp!sino j g::,ugp!Ad ,I pgU!BUJgJ oqM suprv ql!M I I i(1gqqo1 gqi U! pcradtoured JgUO!l!lgd sgqsnqBlSg A{lUg!JY:JilS p10::ig1 gq1, 'AJgqqo11 8u!n!mmo::i U! sup1v ro/pua UBJOJ, 8U!P!B ro/ptra i(1gqqo1 l!UlUlOJ oi 8uri!::inos i ! Ii I I 'i I! ! i I I 'l i ' i' I i I I I ·I ! I: I. i I i I I ·1 I J l l ; 61: 1 I l ,1 i i . ! j i I J i l l ·I I ! j I i I I l ·1 !l \ i I i ! l l ·I Il i ! I . l i I I I I 'i . ! ! 1. i I l ·I oz '!'; ·(17661 ·ud) 6811 'LLI I V •(17661 ·ud) 17Z:£ 'SI£ pz:·v 8179 'uosdiaouf •1t rzv 8179 'uM.o.1g ·111zvaM.UOUI.UI.O:J .QJ!lSnf JO QSUQS S,QUO ){JOtJS I l ! ! i I I i j l I I I ·1 I .lJU.lP!A'J[ aqJ JO Jq !.l.M. aqJ JSU!U V SUM P!P.l.lA ON asnu:,ag pa.l.lilJJO .lJ!Pilr.l.ld ON "£ ; .\ I I I I I I I! i l II I ·1 I 1 I ·1t j I I I i ! 'i! j I l ·1 I I I ! j l l i \ I I I! i i I I I l i 'l l i 1 II I i I l I I 'li zz LOS9 I B!UBA{lsuugd 'g!JtI 'igg1is qlX!S isgA\ SO£ '·bs3: 'uowlBH IgBqJ!W gJYJO s,JCgwouv P!llS!Q I I I iI Il I -.,i ! I l I ! NOISfYI3NO:::> l l i l l i l ·1 ! I i I I ,,\ I ! I i .oo

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.