Opinion
J-S01010-16 No. 825 EDA 2014
03-16-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ELIJAH JACKSON, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 27, 2014 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, No. CP-51-CR-0005328-2011 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUNDY and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
Elijah Jackson ("Jackson") appeals, pro se, from the judgment of sentence imposed following his conviction of two counts of aggravated assault. We affirm.
The trial court set forth the relevant factual and procedural history, which we adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/15/15, at 1-6.
Jackson filed a timely Notice of Appeal. The trial court ordered Jackson to file a Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) concise statement. Jackson filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement on April 7, 2014. The trial court granted the Motion, allowing Jackson an additional 30 days to file a concise statement. Jackson's counsel filed a statement of intent to file a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Pursuant to a directive from this Court, the trial court conducted a Grazier hearing on March 19, 2015, and Jackson was permitted to proceed pro se.
See Commonwealth v. Grazier , 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).
On appeal, Jackson raises the following questions for our review:
I. Whether [the] prosecutor expressed his personal opinion to the jury as to the falsity of [Jackson's] testimony [] in violation of [Jackson's] [F]ifth and [F]ourteenth [A]mendment rights to due process of law[,] where[] the prosecutor subliminally induced the jurors to believe [that] if [Jackson] [was] not found guilty of aggravated assault on a police officer[,] [Jackson] and his wife may win a lawsuit against the city of Philadelphia?Brief for Appellant at 4.
II. Whether the prosecutor prejudiced the jury against [Jackson,] in violation of [Jackson's] [F]ifth and [F]ourteenth [A]mendment rights to due process of law[,] [where] the prosecutor lied to the jury [by] stating that [Jackson] was going for the officer's gun during the struggle between the officer and [Jackson,] and [by stating] that there [was] an [eyewitness] to this event?
III. Whether the [trial court's] [O]pinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)[] is [] advocacy for the district attorney in violation of [the] Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Canon 1[] and Canon 2?
In his first claim, Jackson argues that the prosecutor improperly expressed his personal opinion as to the falsity of Jackson's testimony. Id. at 7. Jackson also asserts that the prosecutor improperly questioned Officer John Ciarlante ("Officer Ciarlante") regarding the civil complaint Jackson had filed against the Philadelphia Police Department. Id. at 7-8.
The standard of review for a trial court's evidentiary rulings is narrow. The admissibility of evidence is solely within
the discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only if the trial court has abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but is rather the overriding or misapplication of the law, or the exercise of judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of bias, prejudice, ill-will or partiality, as shown by the evidence of record.Commonwealth v. Hanford , 937 A.2d 1094, 1098 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
In its Opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant law, and determined that the existence of Jackson's civil suit could be properly introduced at his criminal trial to demonstrate possible bias, and that the prosecutor did not express his personal opinion while examining Officer Ciarlante. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/15/15, at 7-8. We adopt the sound reasoning of the trial court for the purpose of this appeal. See id.
In his second claim, Jackson asserts that the prosecutor lied during his opening statement by indicating that a civilian eyewitness would testify that Jackson had reached for Officer Ciarlante's handgun. Brief for Appellant at 9. Additionally, Jackson claims that the prosecutor violated several ethical standards by asserting his personal opinion regarding the eyewitness's credibility. Id. at 10-11.
Specifically, Jackson cites to the following statement made by the prosecutor during his opening statement: "The eyewitness who I'll get to, a civilian, sees [Jackson] going for the officer's firearm, his handgun." N.T., 7/17/13, at 24-25.
The trial court set forth the relevant law, and determined that the statement in question did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/15/15, at 9-10. We adopt the sound reasoning of the trial court for the purpose of this appeal. See id.
In his third claim, Jackson argues that the trial court's Opinion, filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), constitutes advocacy on behalf of the prosecution. See Brief for Appellant at 11-12.
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a) sets forth the trial court's requirement to issue an opinion in support of an order. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(1) (directing the trial court, upon receipt of a notice of appeal, to "file of record at least a brief opinion of the reasons for the order, or for the rulings or other errors complained of, or shall specify in writing the place in the record where such reasons may be found."). "The obvious purpose of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) is to facilitate appellate review of a particular trial court order. Additionally, [] the rule ... [provides] ... the legal basis for a judicial decision." Commonwealth v. DeJesus , 868 A.2d 379, 383 (Pa. 2005); see also Commonwealth v. Williams , 732 A.2d 1167, 1176 (Pa. Super. 1999) (stating that "this Court has not prohibited the adoption of portions of a party's arguments in support of a judicial disposition.").
Subsection (b) allows the trial court to order an appellant to file a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). A concise statement submitted pursuant to subsection (b) identifies the issues an appellant intends to challenge, and preserves those issues for appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(i), (vii); see also Commonwealth v. Osteen , 552 A.2d 1124, 1126 (Pa. Super. 1989) (stating that "[t]he purpose of the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement is to specify the particular issues which [the] appellant intends to present on appeal in order to permit the trial court an opportunity to provide the appellate court with a focused and meaningful explanation for any challenged actions in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.").
Here, the trial court ordered Jackson to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement setting forth the claims he intended to raise on appeal, and the trial court thereafter issued its Opinion in support of the judgment of sentence, pursuant to the directive of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). In doing so, the trial court did nothing more than provide its reasons for denying Jackson relief, and did not become an advocate for the prosecution. Thus, this claim is without merit.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 3/16/2016
Image materials not available for display.