Opinion
No. 2739 EDA 2019
12-31-2020
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. James JOHNSON, Appellant
MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.:
Appellant James Johnson appeals from the order denying his timely first petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). Appellant argues that the PCRA court erred in rejecting his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for advising him not to testify at trial. Following our review of the record, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court's opinion.
42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541 - 9546.
We adopt the PCRA court's summary of the facts underlying this matter. See PCRA Ct. Op., 12/20/19, at 1-4. Briefly, Appellant was charged with robbery, conspiracy, simple assault, and related offenses after an incident involving Appellant, Appellant's co-defendant, and the estranged husband of Appellant's best friend. The matter proceeded to a non-jury trial, at which the Commonwealth presented video footage of the incident. Ultimately, Appellant was convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of three to six years' incarceration followed by two years' probation.
Appellant filed a post-sentence motion seeking reconsideration of his sentence. At the hearing on Appellant's motion, the trial court resentenced Appellant to a term of four to eight years' incarceration, explaining that Appellant's conduct merited an increased sentence. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Appellant's convictions, but concluded that the trial court erred by increasing Appellant's sentence sua sponte. See Commonwealth v. Johnson , 601 EDA 2016 at 5-6 (Pa. Super. filed July 18, 2017) (unpublished mem.). Therefore, we remanded the matter for resentencing. Id. at 6. On October 4, 2017, the trial court resentenced Appellant to the original aggregate term of three to six years' incarceration followed by two years' probation. See Order, 10/4/17.
Appellant subsequently filed a timely PCRA petition in which he argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Appellant of his right to testify. PCRA Pet., 11/2/18, at ¶¶ 23-58. Following an evidentiary hearing, the PCRA court denied relief.
Appellant subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal. The PCRA court did not order Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, but issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing Appellant's claim.
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue for review:
Did the PCRA court err by determining that trial counsel provided effective assistance where he did not review crucial video evidence with Appellant prior to trial, and denied him the ability to make a knowing and voluntary determination of whether to testify in his own defense?
Appellant's Brief at 6.
Following our review of the record, the parties' briefs, and the well-reasoned conclusions of the PCRA court, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court's opinion. See PCRA Ct. Op. at 1-8. Specifically, we note that the PCRA court credited trial counsel's testimony that he "meticulously discussed" the Commonwealth's video evidence with Appellant, but ultimately advised him not to testify based on his crimen falsi convictions. See id. at 7. Therefore, we agree with the PCRA court that Appellant failed to establish that trial counsel interfered with Appellant's right to testify or gave unreasonable advice that vitiated his decision of whether to testify on his own behalf. See id. Accordingly, we affirm.
We note that the PCRA court cited this Court's decision Commonwealth v. Walker , 110 A.3d 1000 (Pa. Super. 2015), which held that "the appropriate standard for assessing whether a defendant was prejudiced by trial counsel's ineffectiveness regarding the waiver of his right to testify is whether the result of the waiver proceeding would have been different absent counsel's ineffectiveness." See Walker , 110 A.3d at 1005 (emphasis omitted); PCRA Ct. Op. at 7. Applying Walker , the PCRA court then concluded that Appellant "knew he had a right to testify, and if after seeing the video [at trial], he believed he should testify, he certainly could have told his counsel or the [trial c]ourt that he wished to do so." PCRA Ct. Op. at 7-8. However, the PCRA court further determined that, based on Appellant's testimony at the PCRA evidentiary hearing, his testimony would not have changed the outcome of the trial. Id. at 8.
Because we agree with the PCRA court's conclusion that Appellant failed to establish that trial counsel had reasonable basis for advising Appellant not to testify, we need not review, nor do we adopt, the PCRA court's conclusion regarding prejudice. See Commonwealth v. Daniels , 963 A.2d 409, 419 (Pa. 2009) (stating that the "failure to satisfy any prong of the ineffectiveness test requires rejection of the claim"); see also Walker , 110 A.3d at 1005 ; see also Commonwealth v. Towles, 208 A.3d 988 (Pa. 2019) (acknowledging this Court's decision in Walker , but declining to consider whether that was the appropriate standard, in part because the issue was not appropriately briefed).
--------
Order affirmed.
Attachment
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?