COMMONWEALTH v. BLYSTONE, 555 Pa. 565 (1999)

725 A.2d 1197

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.Submitted February 3, 1997.
Decided February 26, 1999.

Page 566

Direct appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, dated January 4, 1996, denying appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief from the judgment of sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County at Nos. 2, 2 1/4, 2 2/4, 2 3/4 of 1984 term.

Page 567

Page 568

Page 569

Page 570

Page 571

Robert Brett Dunham, Philadelphia, Paul D. Boas, Pittsburg, for S. Blystone.

John Kopas, III, Fairchance, Robert A. Graci, Harrisburg, Peter U. Hook, Uniontown, for the Com.

Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY CASTILLE, NIGRO NEWMAN and SAYLOR, JJ.

OPINION
CASTILLE, Justice.

This is a direct appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County denying appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief.[1]
For the reasons expressed herein, we affirm the order of the PCRA court.

On June 13, 1984, a jury convicted appellant of first degree murder, robbery, conspiracy to commit homicide and conspiracy to commit robbery.[2] Following a separate penalty proceeding,

Page 572

the jury sentenced appellant to death.[3] On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the convictions and judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Blystone, 519 Pa. 450, 549 A.2d 81 (1988). On February 28, 1990, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the sentence of death. Blystone v. Pennsylvania, 494 U.S. 299 (1990).

On October 12, 1995, over eleven years after his conviction, appellant filed a petition under the PCRA alleging numerous issues including claims of ineffectiveness of counsel, trial court errors and constitutional violations. After an evidentiary hearing, the PCRA court denied appellant’s petition for collateral relief by memorandum opinion and order dated January 4, 1996. This appeal followed.

This Court’s standard of review from the grant or denial of post-conviction relief is limited to determining whether the lower court’s determination is supported by the evidence of record and whether it is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 541 Pa. 108, 117 n. 4, 661 A.2d 352, 356 n. 4, cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1121 (1995). In order to be eligible for relief under the PCRA, an appellant must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction or sentence arose from one or more of the errors listed at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2),[4]

Page 573

that the issues he raises have not been previously litigated,[5] and that the claims have not been waived. Id., 541 Pa. at 117, 661 A.2d at 356; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(3). It is with the above standards in mind that we examine appellant’s claims.

Appellant first argues that he was deprived of his right to an impartial jury because the empanelled jury was improperly death qualified.[6]
Specifically, he asserts that there is a possibility that at least one unknown potential juror was improperly stricken for cause.[7] This claim does not entitle appellant to PCRA relief.

Page 574

First, appellant fails to demonstrate, as he must under the PCRA, how the alleged exclusion of this unknown juror so undermined the truth determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.[8] In addition, the trial court, in its post-trial motion opinion, found that: “In all, five jurors out of ninety-six subjected to voir dire in this case were excused for cause upon challenge by the Commonwealth by reason of their responses to questions concerning the imposition of the death penalty.” Trial Ct. Opinion, June 10, 1986, at 58. The trial court then analyzed the questioning of each juror which the Commonwealth had challenged for cause. The court noted that “[a] review of the testimony of these jurors clearly shows that their exclusion for cause was proper.” Id. at 64. We agree that the record simply does not support appellant’s position that other jurors may have been excused for cause after having expressed only generalized opposition to the death penalty.[9]

Page 575

EDITOR’S NOTE: THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK.

Page 576

Appellant next argues that the trial court violated his due process rights and his right to an impartial capital sentencing jury pursuant to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments by not allowing trial counsel to life qualify the jury during voir dire.[10] In support of his position, appellant cites Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (1992), where the United States Supreme Court held that, during voir dire for a capital offense, a state trial court may not, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, refuse inquiry into whether a potential juror would automatically impose the death penalty upon conviction of the defendant.

The Court’s decision in Morgan was not issued until well after appellant’s direct appeal was finalized. Thus, we must determine whether the rule enunciated in Morgan is to apply retroactively. In Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), the United States Supreme Court barred the retroactive application upon collateral review of a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure that is announced after a defendant’s conviction is final, because all avenues of direct appeal have been exhausted.[11] The Teague Court held that a case announces a new rule when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government, or if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final. Id.
at 301; see also Commonwealth v. Christy, 540 Pa. 192, 216, 656 A.2d 877 cert. denied,

Page 577

516 U.S. 872, 116, S.Ct. 194, 133 L.Ed.2d 130 (1995) (a case which breaks with past precedent is not applicable retroactively to cases final on direct appeal but pending in a collateral proceeding); Commonwealth v. Todaro, 549 Pa. 545, 701 A.2d 1343, 1347 (1997) (even a case which breaks with past precedent that is given a fully retroactive effect is not applied to any case on collateral review unless the decision announcing the new rule of law was handed down during the pendency of the defendant’s direct appeal and the issue was properly preserved on direct appeal).

Here, application of the Teague test indicates that the rule enunciated in Morgan should not be applied retroactively to appellant’s case on collateral review because Morgan constituted a new rule for voir dire in capital cases. Prior to the Morgan decision, the United States Supreme Court had not imposed a mandatory requirement that a defendant be afforded a life qualifying voir dire question upon request. Additionally, prior to Morgan, Pennsylvania did not mandate that juries be questioned on life qualification. See Commonwealth v. Tilley, 528 Pa. 125, 151, 595 A.2d 575, 587-88 (1991) (holding that life qualification of a jury was not required to insure that a fair and impartial jury was selected). Therefore, under the test enunciated i Teague, the holding of Morgan announced a new rule and placed a new obligation on the states. A new rule of law to which we give full retroactive effect, will not be applied to any case on collateral review unless that decision was handed down during the pendency of an appellant’s direct appeal and the issue was properly preserved there, or, is non-waivable. Commonwealth v. Gillespie, 512 Pa. 349, 354, 516 A.2d 1180, 1183 (1986). Thus, the trial court properly precluded trial counsel’s voir dire questions in accordance with the established law at the time of appellant’s trial, and appellant is not entitled to relief on this basis.

Appellant next argues that the trial court’s requirement that both the Commonwealth and appellant exercise their peremptory challenges immediately following their respective voir dire examinations, violated his due process rights

Page 578

and his right to an impartial jury under both the State and Federal Constitutions.[12] Appellant contends that this procedure was unconstitutional and violative of Pa.R.Crim.P. 1106(e)(1)(b).[13]

Appellant fails to demonstrate, as he must under the PCRA, how the court’s requirements for the exercise of peremptory challenges so undermined the truth determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place. During the PCRA hearing, appellant elicited from his trial counsel the specific procedures that the trial court required of both parties. However, appellant failed to elicit any testimony that described a single instance where trial counsel wanted to exercise a peremptory challenge but was precluded from doing so because of the trial court’s requirement. In fact, the one example that trial counsel provided to demonstrate the effect of the court’s rule was one that impacted negatively upon the Commonwealth, not on appellant.[14]
Thus, the negative impact of the trial court’s rule, in the single example illuminated by appellant, was at the Commonwealth’s expense, not appellant’s. Accordingly, appellant is not entitled to relief on this basis.

Appellant next raises numerous claims of ineffectiveness of counsel. To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant bears the burden of proving: (1)

Page 579

that the underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) that counsel’s action or inaction was not grounded on any reasonable basis designed to effectuate appellant’s interest; and (3) that the act or omission prejudiced appellant in such a way that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153, 527 A.2d 973 (1987).[15] If it is clear that appellant has not met the prejudice prong of the ineffectiveness standard, the claim may be dismissed on that basis alone and this Court need not determine whether the first and second prongs have been met. Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 541 Pa. 108, 661 A.2d 352, cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1121 (1995).

First, appellant argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request that the jury be instructed that it could not consider appellant’s statements about having robbed the victim unless the corpus delicti of the robbery was established beyond a reasonable doubt with independent evidence. See e.g. Commonwealth v. Reyes, 545 Pa. 374, 384, 681 A.2d 724, 728-729 (1995) (there are two phases of corpus delicti rule; phase one deals with the quantum of evidence necessary for the admission of extra-judicial statements, phase two deals with the quantum of evidence necessary before the jury may consider extra-judicial statements in assessing guilt or innocence). In the alternative, appellant argues that the trial court should have provided such an instruction even absent a request from counsel. These claims warrant no relief as they have been previously litigated on appellant’s direct appeal.[16]

Page 580

Appellant next argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek remedial measures in response to a witness’ reference to appellant having been in prison and on parole.[17] Further, appellant argues that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue this claims in his direct appeal. We find these claims to be without merit because appellant has failed to demonstrate how counsel’s actions prejudiced him.

Not all references which may indicate prior criminal activity require reversal. Commonwealth v. Nichols, 485 Pa. 1, 4, 400 A.2d 1281, 1282
(1979). Mere passing references to criminal activity will not require reversal unless the record indicates that prejudice resulted from the reference. Id. Here, as indicated in this Court’s direct review of this matter, there was overwhelming evidence of guilt presented against appellant. Accordingly, it cannot be said that counsel’s failure to seek remedial measures in response to the witness’ reference to appellant’s previous involvement with the justice system prejudiced appellant.

Further, at the PCRA hearing, counsel explained that he did not pursue cautionary instructions, move to strike the unresponsive answer, or move for a mistrial because such action would have served only to highlight the statements which were not overly emphasized to the jury. N.T. PCRA Vol. 1, at 54. Therefore, trial counsel’s actions were reasonably designed to effectuate appellant’s best interests and counsel will not be deemed ineffective. See Commonwealth v. Buehl,

Page 581

540 Pa. 493, 506 n. 6, 658 A.2d 771, 778 n. 6 (1995) (trial counsel may have wished to avoid emphasizing what might have gone relatively unnoticed by the jury, and thus possessed a reasonable basis for failing to request an instruction); Commonwealth v. Riley, 459 Pa. 42, 46, 326 A.2d 400, 402 (1974) (cautionary instruction could only serve to emphasize or refresh jury’s memory of improper incident).[18]

Appellant next argues that he was denied the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and under Article 1, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because trial counsel was an inexperienced part-time public defender. This Court has consistently stated that inexperience alone is not equivalent to ineffectiveness Commonwealth v. Williams, 537 Pa. 1, 27, 640 A.2d 1251, 1264 (1994). In addition, appellant fails to demonstrate how counsel’s inexperience prejudiced him. His attempts at demonstrating prejudice are merely repetitions of the claims already asserted in the brief. Accordingly, this claim must fail.

Appellant next alleges that trial counsel was per se ineffective for failing to investigate, present, or argue any mitigating factors during the sentencing phase.[19] We find this claim to be without merit. Counsel requested appellant to testify regarding his past background and wanted appellant’s father to testify regarding appellant’s troubled childhood. Appellant not only refused to take the stand to testify in mitigation, but he also refused to allow any other mitigating evidence to be presented on his behalf.

On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the Supreme Court found that “[a]fter receiving repeated warnings from the trial judge, and contrary advice from his counsel, [appellant] decided not to present any proof of mitigating evidence during his sentencing proceedings.”Blystone, 494 U.S. at 307 n. 4. When the trial judge asked

Page 582

appellant to explain this decision, appellant stated: “I don’t want anybody else brought into it.” Id. Accordingly, it was appellant’s choice not to present any mitigating evidence. [20] Appellant is not entitled to a new trial where trial counsel acceded to appellant’s wishes and refrained from presenting evidence of mitigating factors when it was appellant himself who prevented the presentation of any mitigating factors. See Commonwealth v. Cross, 535 Pa. 38, 44-45, 634 A.2d 173, 176
(1993), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 109 (1994) (counsel has no right to override what the client considers to be in his best interest; this is particularly true when it has been determined that the client is competent to stand trial). If this Court were to allow an ineffectiveness claim to succeed after appellant made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of his right to present mitigating evidence, it would have the unwanted and absurd effect of allowing appellant and other defendants to build automatic ineffective assistance claims into their case in order to guarantee themselves a new sentencing hearing should they receive the death penalty.

Appellant next argues that trial counsel could not have adequately counseled appellant on waiving his right to offer mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase because

Page 583

counsel failed to investigate all possible mitigating circumstances. The PCRA court determined that counsel conducted a proper investigation into all possible mitigating circumstances, and we find substantial support in the record to uphold the PCRA court’s determination.[21] Because the PCRA court’s determination is well grounded in evidence of record and is in accord with the laws of Pennsylvania, we will not disturb its determination. Travaglia, 541 Pa. at 117 n. 4, 661 A.2d at 356 n. 4. Therefore, appellant’s claim must fail.

Appellant next argues that trial counsel was ineffective for stating during closing argument in the sentencing phase that “[w]e can still take this man into our hands and hope that at some point in his life he can be rehabilitated.” Appellant contends that this statement implied that if the jury opted to impose a life sentence instead of the death penalty, that appellant would be released from prison at some point in the future. We fail to see how trial counsel’s statement could warrant such a finding by the jury. Counsel was merely arguing that the jury should spare appellant’s life because of his potential to make positive contributions to society in the future. The statement was an attempt at arguing for mitigation. One cannot infer that this statement implied a possible release from prison. Thus, this claim is without merit.

Appellant next argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a defense of voluntary intoxication or diminished capacity during the guilt phase of the trial so as to possibly reduce appellant’s conviction from first degree murder

Page 584

to third degree murder. Specifically, appellant argues that trial counsel should have called specific witnesses in order to establish appellant’s intoxication on the night of the murder.

The first witness whom appellant purports would have testified as to his intoxication had serious credibility problems. The PCRA court made the following observations about the witness:

[the witness] testified at the PCRA hearing that [appellant] was at a party in the early evening of September 9, 1983. She stated that she now remembers that [appellant] was drinking a lot of beer and using marijuana during the party and that she asked him to leave because he was drunk. When asked about her own drinking that evening she gave conflicting answers, at one point saying that she was not drinking and then testifying that she was. [The witness’] PCRA testimony regarding events twelve years past carries little weight in light of her prior testimony during the hearing on post-verdict motions wherein she could not even remember which of her own birthdays she celebrated by giving the party. In said post-verdict testimony [the witness] made no references to any drug use or drunkenness on [appellant’s] part although she stated that she and unnamed guests were drinking and having a good time. The court further notes that [the witness’] memories about the length of [appellant’s] attendance at her party were unreliable even at the post-verdict hearing as she was impeached with contradictory testimony she had given at the trial of [appellant’s] co-defendant some months earlier.

Trial Ct. PCRA Opinion at 20-21. We find that the PCRA court’s findings are supported by the record and, therefore, we will not disturb its finding that this witness was not credible and her testimony does not provide credible support for appellant’s position that he was intoxicated at the time of the murder.

Further, although one of appellant’s convicted co-conspirators, a Commonwealth witness, testified at trial that the group purchased a fifth of whiskey on the night of the murder, the record simply does not support appellant’s position that his

Page 585

alleged intoxication negated his intent to kill or diminished his mental capacity. To the contrary, appellant admitted to a police informant: “I knew what I was going to do. I told everybody what I was going to do.” N.T. Trial at 115. Further, he indicated to his friends that it was necessary to kill the victim because the victim could identify them. By appellant’s own admission, he articulated a specific intent to kill at the time of the murder.

In addition, Pennsylvania’s version of the diminished capacity defense applies only to evidence pertaining to those cognitive functions necessary to form a specific intent. Christy, 540 Pa. at 203, 656 A.2d at 882. Appellant has failed to present credible evidence to establish that he suffered from any mental infirmities at the time of the murder. As the PCRA court properly noted, when PCRA counsel finished with his extensive questioning of the psychological witnesses presented at the PCRA hearing,[22] it became apparent that their testimony was irrelevant with regard to a diminished capacity defense during the guilt phase, since neither of the witnesses testified that appellant’s alleged impaired cognitive functions in any way affected his ability to formulate the specific intent to kill. Further, there was no diagnosis of mental disorder in the Mayview Hospital report or in appellant’s naval discharge records, both of which appellant’s experts relied upon in forming their opinions that appellant’s inability to conform was present and apparent at the time of trial. Counsel had appellant’s mental health evaluated prior to trial, and based upon the information counsel received at that earlier time, there was no support for a diminished capacity defense. Accordingly, counsel will not be deemed ineffective for failing to present that defense.

Page 586

Appellant next argues that the sentence of death should be vacated because the penalty-phase jury instructions, viewed in the totality of the circumstances of the case, improperly indicated to the jury that they had to be unanimous in finding a mitigating factor. See Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988) (holding that a death sentence must be vacated where there is a substantial probability that reasonable jurors could understand that they must unanimously find a mitigating factor before they can weigh it against any aggravating factors). We find that the court’s sentencing instructions were entirely proper.

The trial judge’s charge to the jury almost exactly mirrored the dictates of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9711(c)(1)(iv), which requires the jury to recommend a sentence of death if it unanimously finds at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances. N.T. Trial at 147-52. We have held that this statutory language does not “state or infer a requirement that any given mitigating circumstance must be unanimously recognized before it can be weighed against aggravating circumstances in reaching a verdict.” Commonwealth v. Frey, 520 Pa. 338, 347, 554 A.2d 27, 31 (1989), cert. denied. 494 U.S. 1038 (1990). Thus, an instruction that tracks the language of the statute cannot be a violation of the Mills standard. The trial court neither directly nor implicitly instructed the jury that it had to unanimously find a mitigating factor before it could give that factor effect. Therefore, the claim is meritless.[23]

Appellant next argues that both his Federal and Pennsylvania Constitutional rights were violated because the trial court failed to inform the sentencing jury that, if the jury imposed a life sentence, appellant would be ineligible for parole. Appellant artfully constructs various constitutional arguments to substantiate his claim; however, all of his arguments

Page 587

fall well within the realm of Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154
(1994), which holds that where future dangerousness is made an issue with a capital sentencing jury and the defendant makes a specific request, it is a violation of due process for the trial court to fail to issue an instruction that life imprisonment means life without parole. This Court has held that Simmons does not apply retroactively on PCRA review Christy, 540 Pa. at 217, 656 A.2d at 889. Therefore, this claim warrants no relief.[24]

Appellant next argues that his federal and state Constitutional rights were violated when the prosecutor stated during closing argument that the jury should not be “guided by sympathy for the defendant or the victim” in their sentencing deliberations. Appellant asserts that the prosecutor misstated the applicable law and thus precluded the jury from making a proper determination of mitigating circumstances.[25] Appellant’s assertion is flawed.

At the time of appellant’s trial in 1984, the law of this Commonwealth precluded the jury from considering sympathy in its capital sentencing determination. See Travaglia, 502 Pa. at 501, 467 A.2d at 301, (prosecutor’s argument reminding jury that sympathy was not a proper consideration was not improper). Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has determined that anti-sympathy instructions in general are not barred by the Federal Constitution. See Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486
(1990) (stating that a constitutional rule prohibiting anti-sympathy instructions “is not dictated by our prior cases and, were it to be adopted, it would contravene well-considered precedents”). Thus, the prosecutor’s remarks were proper under Eighth Amendment at the time of appellant’s trial and the finalization

Page 588

of his direct appeal. See Travaglia, supra, (determining that the Eighth Amendment contained no such requirement in 1983). Accordingly, appellant’s claim merits no relief. Because this claim is meritless, trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object or seek a curative instruction, and appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless claim.

Appellant next argues that the cumulative effect of the aforementioned alleged errors and claims of ineffectiveness of trial counsel claims undermined the reliability of the jury’s determination in both the guilt and sentencing phases to such an extent that a new trial is warranted. All of appellant’s assorted claims concerning both the guilt and sentencing phases of his trial have failed for lack of merit. No amount of failed claims may collectively attain merit if they could not do so individually. Commonwealth v. Murphy, 540 Pa. 318, 657 A.2d 927 (1995). Thus, this claim is meritless.

Accordingly, appellant is not entitled to PCRA relief.[26]