Opinion
2188 EDA 2023 J-S15003-24
06-28-2024
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RAUL DELAROSA Appellant
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 3, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003855-2017.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and COLINS, J.[*]
MEMORANDUM
OLSON, J.:
Appellant, Raul DeLarosa, appeals from the order entered on August 3, 2023, which denied his petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
On January 22, 2018, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to third-degree murder, criminal conspiracy, and criminal solicitation. During the plea colloquy, Appellant admitted to the following:
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(c), 903, and 902(a), respectively.
[In] June [] 2010, [Appellant] requested the assistance of [co-defendant Hector Rivera] . . . to assist him in the killing of the victim in this case, Candido Hidalgo [("the Victim")].
Hector Rivera, in turn, asked another [co-defendant] in this case by the name of Jose Padilla . . . to also assist in the killing of [the Victim].
On . . . [June 13, 2010], with the assistance of [Appellant], Hector Rivera and Jose Padilla, armed with knives[,] waited in the back of [the Victim's Philadelphia] property. . . . Mr. Rivera and Mr. Padilla waited . . . between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. on that date . . . [and] when the [Victim] . . . arrived home, they attacked him and stabbed him repeatedly with knives. And they stabbed him in the area of the face, the neck, the hands, and the chest.
Mr. Rivera and Mr. Padilla fled the location. Police and medics were called by [the Victim's] wife and daughter who were home at the time. Medics arrived and pronounced [the Victim] dead at 4:07 a.m.
[The Victim's] body was transported to the Medical Examiner's Office where his remains were examined by forensic pathologist Dr. Aaron Rosen, who determined that the cause of [the Victim's] death was multiple stab and incise wounds, and that the manner of death was homicide.
Subsequent to the killing of [the Victim, Appellant] did make arrangements to pay Mr. Rivera and Mr. Padilla thousands of dollars for their assistance in the killing of [the Victim. Appellant] fled to the Dominican Republic shortly after the murder and had to be extradited back here to be here for this trial.
. . .
[The] evidence would show that [Appellant and the Victim] were involved in a drug dealing business together. They were transporting large quantities of drugs from Mexico throughout the East Coast.N.T. Guilty Plea, 1/22/18, at 20-22.
On February 20, 2018, the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve the negotiated, aggregate sentence of 15 to 30 years in prison for his convictions. N.T. Sentencing, 2/20/18, at 19. We affirmed Appellant's judgment of sentence on January 31, 2019. Commonwealth v. DeLarosa, 209 A.3d 543 (Pa. Super. 2019) (non-precedential decision).
On March 26, 2019, Appellant filed a timely, pro se PCRA petition and the PCRA court later appointed counsel to represent Appellant during the proceedings. The PCRA court dismissed Appellant's first PCRA petition on August 12, 2019 and we affirmed the PCRA court's order on December 14, 2020. Commonwealth v. DeLarosa, 245 A.3d 1065 (Pa. Super. 2020) (non-precedential decision).
On May 1, 2023, Appellant filed the current PCRA petition, which constitutes Appellant's second petition for post-conviction collateral relief under the PCRA. Within the petition, Appellant claimed:
On November 20, 2022, while at the prison library, the law clerk provided [Appellant] with a copy of a publication titled Right To Be Free, which documented an extensive list of Philadelphia Police Officers who had been "accused, charged, convicted, and/or disciplined for alleged actions of misconduct."
With the assistance of the law clerk, the names of these police officers were compared to the few pages of the discovery file [Appellant] has in his possession. This search revealed the following officers accused or convicted of misconduct were also involved in the investigation of [Appellant's] case: "John Verrecchio, Ohmarr Jenkins, Thomas Gaul, Angela Gaines, Ronald Jenkins, Philip Nordo, Carl Watkins," and "Holmes."
On February 12, 2023, [Appellant] received (from the prison's law clerk) what he believes to be portions of Officer Nordo's disciplinary file that the law clerk obtained from another prisoner. This information, which was never disclosed to defense counsel, reveals that Officer Nordo had
committed instances of police misconduct before [Appellant's] arrest, and was suspended or under investigation at the time of [Appellant's] guilty plea.
[Appellant] submits that[] Hector Rivera, the only witness linking him to this crime[,] was interviewed by [officers] Nordo, Verrecchio, and Gaul. At this interview, Rivera allegedly confessed to committing the murder ordered by [Appellant], and set in motion via a phone call.
In an August 5, 2014 sworn affidavit, based on this interview, Officer Verrecchio claimed to be in possession of phone records linking a call from [Appellant] to Rivera at the time of the murder. These phone records, however, cannot be located. While [Appellant] knew he did not call Rivera when he pled guilty, his attorney told him the police had records that demonstrate a call was made. Had [Appellant] known at the time of his guilty plea that Officer Verrecchio was dishonest, he would not have accepted his attorney's word that such phone records existed, and further, rejected the Commonwealth's offer to plead guilty.Appellant's Second PCRA Petition, 5/1/23, at 1-3 (citations and numbering omitted).
According to Appellant, even though his PCRA petition was facially untimely, his claims fell within the newly-discovered fact and governmental interference exceptions to the PCRA's one-year time-bar. Appellant requested that the PCRA court "vacate his conviction, allow him to withdraw his guilty plea, and invoke his right to a jury trial." Id. at 3.
On May 17, 2023, the PCRA court provided Appellant with notice that it intended to dismiss his petition in 20 days, without holding a hearing, as the petition was untimely. PCRA Court Notice, 5/17/23, at 1; see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). Appellant responded to the PCRA court's Rule 907 notice with an amended petition that expounded upon his original claims. See Appellant's Rule 907 Response, 7/10/23, at 1-29. The PCRA court finally dismissed Appellant's second PCRA petition on August 3, 2023 and Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. See PCRA Court Order, 8/3/23, at 1. Appellant raises the following claims on appeal:
1. Was Appellant entitled to a hearing on his claim that his PCRA filings below, within [one] year of his discovery of evidence revealing the homicide detectives in his case engaged in serious misconduct, satisfied the jurisdictional requirements of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i) and (ii)?
2.Was Appellant entitled to a hearing on his Brady claim where, after pleading guilty and petitioning to withdraw [his] plea, Appellant presented evidence suppressed by the Commonwealth, revealing that both the Commonwealth and trial court knew that the homicide detectives in his case were engaging in serious misconduct which if disclosed, would have resulted in Appellant's rejection of the Commonwealth's plea offer?
3.Was Appellant entitled to a hearing on his after-discovered evidence claim where, after pleading guilty, Appellant presented evidence - suppressed by the Commonwealth - after being alerted to and diligently searching for such evidence, revealing that all homicide detectives in his case, including the affiant himself, engaged in misconduct that included falsifying witness statements to support affidavits of probable cause?Appellant's Brief at 3 (some capitalization omitted).
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified record, and the opinion of the able PCRA court judge, the Honorable Barbara A. McDermott. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief in this case, for the reasons expressed in Judge McDermott's August 3, 2023 opinion. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge McDermott's opinion and adopt it as our own. In any future filing with this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge McDermott's August 3, 2023 opinion.
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
(Attachment Omitted)
[*] Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.