Roy Windom appeals the August 30, 2021 order from the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas that dismissed his Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition. Windom was convicted on June 7, 2019, of multiple charges including Rape of a Child and sentenced to 12½ to 25 years of incarceration followed by 12 years of probation. His conviction stemmed from allegations made by his younger sister, D.J., who reported years of physical and sexual abuse beginning when she was 9 years old.
In his PCRA petition, Windom asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the victim's possible motive to fabricate the allegations, not objecting to alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, and not ensuring his presence during jury deliberation. After appointing counsel, the PCRA court received a "no merit" letter from Windom’s counsel, leading to Windom filing an amended petition. The PCRA court indicated its intent to dismiss without a hearing, and Windom did not respond. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition as meritless.
On appeal, Windom contends that the PCRA court erred in its dismissal and that his PCRA counsel was ineffective for filing the no-merit letter. The appellate review will assess if the PCRA court's decision was supported by the record and free of legal error, with the court granting deference to the PCRA court's findings if they are supported by evidence.
The PCRA court's credibility determinations are binding if supported by the record. To qualify for relief under the PCRA, a petitioner must demonstrate that their conviction or sentence stemmed from specific errors listed in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2), which include constitutional violations, ineffective assistance of counsel, unlawful pleas, government obstruction, newly discovered exculpatory evidence, illegal sentencing, or lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, the petitioner must show that the issues raised were not previously litigated or waived, and that any failure to address these issues was not a rational decision by counsel. The presumption is that counsel provided effective assistance, which can be challenged by proving three elements: the underlying claim has merit, counsel lacked a reasonable basis for their actions, and the petitioner suffered actual prejudice. Each of these elements must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence for a claim to succeed, as failure in any aspect will result in denial.
In this case, Appellant claims his PCRA counsel was ineffective for submitting a "no-merit" letter, arguing that his underlying claims against trial counsel's effectiveness are valid. He specifically points to claims regarding trial counsel's failure to object to allegedly improper statements by the Commonwealth during closing arguments and not ensuring his presence during jury questions. The presiding judge, Timika R. Lane, provided a detailed opinion addressing these issues, concluding that Appellant's trial counsel had valid reasons for their actions and that the claims of ineffectiveness were unfounded. Consequently, the court affirmed the PCRA court's decision, instructing that the opinion be attached to future filings. The order was formalized with judgment entered by Prothonotary Joseph D. Seletyn on July 11, 2022.
Appellant was convicted for the prolonged physical and sexual abuse of his younger sister, D.J., beginning when she was nine and continuing until she was thirteen. D.J. lived in Philadelphia with their mother, T. Lyons, Appellant, and her younger brother, J.J. The household dynamics included three bedrooms, with D.J. and J.J. having separate rooms, while Appellant slept on the couch. D.J. reported that Appellant started physically abusing family members when she was seven, with both D.J. and Lyons testifying to his violent behavior and frequent physical assaults.
D.J. detailed several incidents of sexual abuse, including fondling, digital penetration, and vaginal intercourse, which caused her pain and bleeding. The abuse occurred primarily in her bedroom, and D.J. felt threatened by Appellant's warnings to harm their mother if she disclosed the abuse. After the family moved to another home, the sexual abuse continued regularly. The final incident occurred when D.J. was thirteen, after Appellant, inebriated, fought with Lyons and then assaulted D.J. in her bedroom despite her resistance.
Following a violent episode where Appellant punched D.J. and caused her a black eye, she disclosed his behavior to her school principal, prompting a report to the Department of Human Services (DHS), which subsequently removed D.J. and J.J. from the home. On August 25, 2014, D.J. began revealing details of the sexual abuse to healthcare professionals.
Officer Timothy McIntyre from the Special Victims Unit prepared a report and referred a child sexual abuse case to the Philadelphia Children's Alliance (PCA) on the same date. PCA conducted interviews with the victim, D.J., on October 29, 2014, and November 19, 2015, during which D.J. disclosed multiple instances of abuse by the Appellant. Subsequently, Officer Tyrone Green investigated these allegations and authored a report. The Appellant was arrested on May 17, 2017, and on June 7, 2019, a jury found him guilty of several charges, including rape of a child and unlawful contact with a minor. Following his conviction, the Appellant filed an interlocutory appeal, which was quashed on September 24, 2019.
On January 13, 2020, the court sentenced the Appellant to an aggregate of 12½ to 25 years in prison, along with probation and mandated treatment requirements. The Appellant filed a second notice of appeal on February 11, 2020, and subsequently challenged the discretionary aspects of his sentence. The court's opinion on November 9, 2020, affirmed the sentence, a decision later upheld by the Superior Court on April 15, 2021, with a later memorandum confirming no abuse of discretion in the trial court's sentence.
On May 7, 2021, the Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition, and Attorney Stephen O'Hanlon entered his appearance on May 25, 2021. On June 23, 2021, Attorney O'Hanlon submitted a 'no merit' Finley letter, concluding that the Appellant's claims lacked merit and did not show prejudice from prior counsel's performance. The Appellant then filed an amended petition on July 6, 2021, and was informed on July 29 that his petition would be dismissed. The dismissal occurred on August 30, 2021, allowing Attorney O'Hanlon to withdraw.
On September 9, 2021, the Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal and was instructed to submit a 1925(b) statement by September 15, 2021. He subsequently filed a preliminary concise statement and an amended 1925(b) statement on October 1, 2021, raising issues regarding the ineffectiveness of PCRA counsel, particularly regarding claims of prosecutorial misconduct, trial counsel's failure to object to closing arguments, and the absence of the Appellant during jury questioning.
Appellant contends that PCRA counsel failed to effectively argue claims related to trial counsel's alleged deficiencies, particularly regarding a lack of thorough investigation and communication. Key points raised include:
1. Appellant questions whether the claims have merit, suggesting PCRA counsel did not adequately review the case.
2. Appellant seeks relief or remand for further consideration of these claims.
3. Allegations include that PCRA counsel's filing of a no-merit letter deprived Appellant of a meaningful review and that accumulated errors compromised Appellant's right to a fair trial.
4. PCRA counsel is criticized for failing to communicate important issues and for not seeking necessary documentation that could support Appellant's claims.
5. Specific dates and events where trial counsel allegedly failed to investigate are cited, alongside concerns about the deletion of evidence, including text messages.
6. Appellant argues that the PCRA court erred in denying the petition despite being informed of these communication issues and evidence deletions.
The excerpt also emphasizes that typically, claims not included in a PCRA petition cannot be raised on appeal. However, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Commonwealth v. Bradley, Appellant's claims of PCRA counsel's ineffectiveness can be reviewed on appeal even if raised for the first time. Despite this opportunity for review, the court ultimately concludes that Appellant is not entitled to relief, affirming the dismissal of the PCRA petition, with the standard of review focusing on whether the PCRA court's decision is supported by evidence and free from legal error.
A PCRA court can dismiss a petition without a hearing if there are no genuine issues of material fact and further proceedings would not serve a legitimate purpose, as established in Commonwealth v. Barbosa. To reverse such a dismissal, an appellant must demonstrate that a genuine issue of fact exists that, if resolved in their favor, would warrant relief, or that the court abused its discretion in denying a hearing. To qualify for PCRA relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must prove that counsel's ineffectiveness significantly compromised the truth-determining process, making reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence impossible, per Commonwealth v. Johnson.
The presumption is that counsel has provided effective assistance, and the burden is on the petitioner to prove otherwise. A petitioner must establish three elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 1) the underlying claim has arguable merit, 2) counsel's strategies lacked a reasonable basis for protecting the petitioner's interests, and 3) the petitioner suffered actual prejudice, indicating that the outcome would likely have differed but for counsel's actions or omissions. Failure to satisfy any single prong results in the ineffectiveness claim being denied.
Additionally, claims of PCRA counsel's ineffectiveness follow the same traditional test. In this case, PCRA counsel was not deemed ineffective for concluding that the appellant's pro se claims were meritless. The appellant contends that trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the Commonwealth's closing arguments and for not ensuring his presence during jury questioning. However, the record contradicts these claims, indicating no basis for finding either trial or PCRA counsel ineffective. For instance, the appellant testified about a dispute involving a witness, Lyons, and speculated that a child, D.J., was influenced by emotions surrounding that dispute when reporting allegations against him.
During closing arguments, the Commonwealth addressed Appellant's claim that the mother fabricated allegations as revenge. The prosecutor emphasized that the child, D.J., disclosed the allegations while at The Bridge and had no contact with the mother at that time. The prosecutor pointed out that D.J. was taken to the Philadelphia Children's Alliance immediately after making the allegation, suggesting that she was not influenced by the mother. The prosecutor further dismissed Appellant's timeline, which suggested a motive for revenge linked to an incident on November 18th, arguing that D.J. was in therapy and away from the mother during that period. The prosecutor criticized Appellant's defense, noting the absence of evidence to support his claims and highlighting that defense counsel did not question D.J. or the mother about the alleged theft, implying that they knew it would yield unfavorable responses. The Commonwealth argued that Appellant's assertions were fabricated and urged the jury to consider this when weighing his credibility. Appellant contended that the prosecutor's comments amounted to prosecutorial misconduct, claiming they were unsubstantiated and irrelevant to the evidence presented. Additionally, Appellant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to these comments, and that PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to recognize this deficiency.
The Commonwealth's assertions are substantiated by evidence, rendering the Appellant's claims of ineffectiveness meritless. Prosecutors are granted reasonable latitude to present their case and make logical arguments. During closing arguments, they may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence and respond to defense arguments. Pennsylvania's Rules of Professional Conduct impose ethical obligations on prosecutors while allowing them to act as advocates for the Commonwealth, which includes arguing for the accused's guilt based on the evidence.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania employs a two-part test to assess the propriety of a prosecutor's closing statements, evaluating both the substance and effect of the comments on the jury. The substance must relate to trial issues and the evidence, and any remarks not grounded in evidence or that are derogatory towards the defendant exceed permissible advocacy. Even if comments are improper, they do not constitute reversible error unless they create bias against the defendant that prevents an objective verdict.
In this case, the Commonwealth's closing statements were directly linked to evidence presented at trial, notably a summary indicating that the witness, D.J., had been in care since June 2015 and began disclosing allegations a month prior to her interview. Even if D.J. learned about a dispute between the Appellant and another individual shortly before her interview, this does not imply she fabricated her allegations. The evidence shows she had been gradually revealing details of the abuse well before the dispute occurred.
Appellant's grievance regarding the Commonwealth's closing arguments, which he claims were untrue, is deemed incorrect as the remarks constituted a fair rebuttal to his testimony and did not involve personal attacks or bias against him. Consequently, trial counsel had no reasonable basis to object, leading to the dismissal of Appellant's ineffectiveness claims. Appellant's assertion that he was not present during jury questions is also unfounded; he was present when the jury's questions were read in open court. The court highlighted that the right to be present during critical stages of the trial is guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment and Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 602(A), which mandates a defendant's presence at every stage of the trial, including jury inquiries. The jury's questions were ultimately not ruled upon due to procedural constraints, and by the time they were presented, a unanimous verdict had already been reached. Therefore, Appellant's claim lacks merit, and the ineffectiveness of trial and PCRA counsel is not substantiated. Additionally, Appellant's remaining claims are deemed waived due to insufficient specificity for meaningful review.
Pennsylvania's Rules of Appellate Procedure mandate that a 1925(b) statement must clearly identify each error an appellant intends to assert, providing sufficient detail for the judge to recognize the issues. If the statement is too vague, it is considered equivalent to not having a statement at all, potentially leading to a waiver of the appeal. The trial court's analysis may be significantly hampered if it has to guess the issues, reinforcing the necessity for clarity. Strict adherence to Rule 1925(b) is required, especially for those appealing the denial of Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) relief, as failure to comply can result in waiver of appellate issues. Pro se defendants must follow the same procedural rules as represented defendants, and while courts may liberally interpret their filings, pro se status does not grant any procedural leniency.
In the case at hand, the appellant's second claim alleges ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel due to a lack of communication regarding issues and the absence of necessary documents. The fifth claim similarly questions the PCRA court's decision in light of the alleged communication issues. Both claims are deemed waived because the court cannot ascertain the specific issues the appellant wishes to pursue. The appellant fails to clarify whether he is asserting inadequate communication from PCRA counsel to him or from counsel to the court. Additionally, the appellant does not substantiate his vague claims regarding the lack of information affecting the review of his claims or how a different outcome would have resulted if more information had been obtained. Moreover, while the appellant criticizes PCRA counsel's conclusions, the counsel's Finley letter addressed multiple issues, indicating a thorough analysis.
Appellant's second and fifth claims are waived due to a failure to specify the conclusions for appellate review. The third claim alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not conducting a thorough investigation of events from 2014 and 2015, including the motives behind the allegations, but lacks specifics regarding any facts, theories, or witnesses that were not investigated, rendering it too broad for meaningful review. Consequently, this claim is also waived. The fourth claim asserts ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel for not acquiring additional information to support claims regarding deleted text messages, but does not clarify what information was needed or how its absence hindered Appellant's ability to present evidence, leading to its waiver. Finally, the last claim alleges the PCRA court erred in denying the petition concerning trial counsel's deletion of text messages and violations of professional conduct, but it is waived due to a lack of specificity on which claims are being pursued. Overall, Appellant's claims lack the necessary details for consideration, resulting in their waiver.
Lyons consistently misled the Appellant regarding D.J.'s whereabouts. D.J.'s sister reported sexual abuse by their uncle, which D.J. might have overheard, and D.J. was aware of the conflict between the Appellant and Lyons before revealing this information to PCA on November 19, 2015. The Appellant's assertion that trial counsel deleted text messages from his phone lacks merit, as the only evidence presented is the Appellant's unfounded belief that counsel removed these messages to facilitate a flawed defense against the Appellant's interests. This baseless claim does not support a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record, the court found no harmful, prejudicial, or reversible errors and affirmed the dismissal of the Appellant's PCRA petition. The document also includes proof of service to the District Attorney and the Appellant.
Unavailability of exculpatory evidence at trial, which later became available, could have altered the trial's outcome. There are allegations of a sentence exceeding the lawful maximum and proceedings held by a tribunal lacking jurisdiction. The petitioner asserts eligibility for relief despite filing the PCRA petition over one year after final judgment, claiming exceptions due to governmental interference that prevented earlier claims from being raised, which violates constitutional provisions. The petitioner intends to prove this interference and asserts that facts supporting the claims were previously unknown and could not have been discovered with due diligence. Additionally, the petitioner references newly recognized constitutional rights by the Supreme Court that apply retroactively. The facts supporting the alleged errors will be stated clearly, and the petitioner will outline specific matters to assert if the appeal is granted.
The document consists of various coded notations and references, likely outlining procedural details related to court attachments and trial court processes. Key points include:
- References to trial court attachments, specifically Attachment 5 and Attachment 7, indicating their importance in the legal proceedings.
- Mention of specific parties involved, potentially including plaintiffs and defendants, though the exact names and roles are not clearly stated due to the coded language.
- Implications of compliance or requirements for parties in the context of their legal obligations, possibly concerning motions or responses related to the attachments.
- Various codes and shorthand notations suggest a complex legal framework or procedural rules that govern the case, emphasizing the need for precise adherence to these rules.
- The structure indicates a formal communication within a legal setting, likely aimed at ensuring all parties are aware of their responsibilities and the relevant procedural steps.
The summary encapsulates the essence of the original excerpt while maintaining clarity and detail regarding its legal context and implications.
The excerpt appears to contain a series of legal citations, references, and procedural notes related to trial court attachments. It includes various codes, chapter numbers, and potentially case law or procedural guidelines that are significant in the context of court proceedings or legal documentation. The text suggests multiple attachments and possibly outlines steps or requirements for court actions, including references to specific trial court procedures. The fragmented nature of the text indicates it may be an excerpt from a larger legal document that discusses the authority, process, and implications of trial court attachments, but lacks clarity due to its heavily encoded format.
There appears to be an emphasis on procedural compliance and the necessity for detailed documentation in legal matters, as indicated by the repeated mention of attachments and references to legal codes. Overall, the excerpt signifies the complexity and formality associated with legal proceedings, particularly regarding attachments in trial courts.
The document outlines procedural aspects related to a legal motion concerning a conviction or sentence. Key points include:
- The submission of supporting exhibits, including affidavits and other evidence, although some items were not attached.
- The petitioner details actions taken to secure relief, including a direct appeal, previous court proceedings in Pennsylvania, and any habeas corpus petitions filed in federal courts.
- The petitioner provides information about legal representation following their arrest, specifying the lawyers involved and the proceedings.
- A list of previous challenges to the conviction is included, with details about the courts, terms, attorneys, and relief sought.
- The petitioner asserts that the issues raised in the current motion have not been litigated previously or that any waived issues resulted in wrongful conviction.
- The desired relief includes options such as release from custody, a new trial, or correction of sentence, with a request for an evidentiary hearing included.
- The petitioner certifies the intention to present witnesses and has attached relevant documents to support their claims.
Overall, the excerpt emphasizes the procedural steps taken by the petitioner to challenge their conviction and seek legal relief.
A request is made for the District Attorney to produce specific documents based on exceptional circumstances. The individual asserts an inability to pay for the proceeding due to insufficient funds in their prison account and lack of other financial resources. They indicate a desire for legal representation, stating they do not have a lawyer and cannot afford one, and request the court to appoint counsel. Additionally, there is a mention of possibly being represented by a lawyer, but this is unclear as the document contains various notations and symbols that do not provide coherent information. The excerpt concludes with references to trial court attachments, but the details are not legible or clear.
The document includes an unsworn declaration confirming the accuracy of facts in a motion, with acknowledgment of penalties under Section 4904 of the Crimes Code for false statements. It outlines procedural steps related to a criminal case in Pennsylvania, including the court's consideration of a motion. The court may require the defendant to amend the motion, grant a rule for the Commonwealth to show cause for a hearing, or decide on the defendant's request to proceed as a poor person regarding costs. If the defendant cannot obtain a lawyer, one will be appointed. The Clerk of Court is tasked with serving copies of relevant documents to the District Attorney and the defendant's attorney, as well as notifying the defendant. Additionally, there is a mention of case evaluations that seem to hinge on hearsay, suggesting the need for careful examination beyond initial appearances. The excerpt reflects procedural elements and concerns regarding the fairness and thoroughness of the legal process.
The document outlines a complex custody dispute involving two parents, Doretta and the author, amid allegations of child abuse and neglect. It highlights significant events, such as a visit on August 25, 2014, a subsequent allegation of penetration made on September 15, 2014, and the implications these events have for both prosecution and defense. The whereabouts of children Josiah and Veronica are discussed, noting that Josiah was in foster care until April 2016 and later placed in a boys' home due to behavioral issues, while Veronica is still in a developmental process.
The author expresses concern about Doretta's credibility, suggesting she is hiding the truth and has a history of misleading behavior, notably regarding evidence she supposedly sent. The importance of witness testimonies, particularly that of Marquetta, is emphasized, as her input could clarify household dynamics. The author questions Doretta's absence during critical forensic interviews and suggests that her statements may have been coerced. The document also references past abuse by a stepfather, complicating the custody situation further. The narrative reveals a fractured relationship and ongoing struggles for both parents to present their case effectively, underscoring the emotional and legal challenges they face.
Allegations were made regarding misconduct involving children, with significant events occurring on October 6, 2014, when the children returned home. The individual disputes the accuracy of these allegations and claims that discussions about them were misrepresented, particularly regarding a visit on October 2, 2014, to address the allegations. It is suggested that someone named Doretta may have communicated with Child Protective Services (CPS) about these allegations. The document notes a complaint concerning an individual named James and mentions restrictions placed on his presence at the school.
Concerns are raised about the adequacy of the investigation conducted by the Department of Human Services (DHS) and the perceived lack of thoroughness in discovery, particularly regarding testimonies from school officials and related parties. The writer emphasizes their awareness of Brady v. Maryland, highlighting the expectation for exculpatory evidence to be disclosed by the prosecution, including any relevant findings from DHS.
The author expresses confidence in their defense if certain inquiries are pursued and argues that the case should not be dismissed as mere hearsay. They outline the importance of examining the context of the allegations, particularly a meeting on August 25, 2014, at a hospital where the allegations originated. The writer believes that with proper investigation and attention to details, there is potential for a favorable outcome in court.
The individual expresses frustration and confusion regarding the allegations against them, asserting their innocence and the importance of understanding the accusations. They mention information received from Doretta and Torrva, particularly concerning their stepfather's involvement in the allegations. The individual emphasizes the significance of a visit and its outcome, stating that there were no identified perpetrators in a prior incident reported to school officials.
They reference a formal complaint filed against Josiah and Doretta, indicating that their presence at the school was inappropriate. The individual raises concerns about the reliability of witnesses, particularly Marquetta, due to her criminal history, while pointing out Josiah's potential value as a credible witness. They stress the urgency of obtaining a statement from Josiah before he is returned to their mother, who is implicated in the situation.
Further, the individual highlights the necessity of accessing Department of Human Services (DHS) records, believing that these documents should provide crucial evidence contradicting Doretta's statements. They note that DHS was the original agency involved and assert that their reports are vital for their defense. The discussion suggests a complex family dynamic and legal narrative with implications for custody and accusations of misconduct.
Tamika Orr was the current worker involved in a case at the time of an investigation into the Department of Human Services (DHS) regarding allegations of misconduct. The allegations included false claims related to home visits and other reports. The mother was identified as the original informant, and there were issues regarding her scheduled interviews, which were not clarified or rescheduled. Key communications and text messages relevant to the accusations were mentioned, indicating that these messages would be used to support the defense. The individual, Roy Nindom, expressed his intent to provide evidence and further communications to advocate for his case, including messages from various sources dating back to 2014 or 2015. He also mentioned efforts to involve another witness, Veronica Summers, to assist in securing the return of the children involved. Nindom requested copies of messages for accuracy, emphasizing the importance of thorough documentation in his defense.
