 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Brown4/29/2005
claim was raised and rejected in Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 851 A.2d at 901, where we recognized that our Court has consistently upheld the validity of our proportionality review against similar challenges. See also Commonwealth v. Marshall, 812 A.2d 539, 551-52 (Pa. 2002); Commonwealth v. Wharton, 811 A.2d at 991; Commonwealth v. Gribble, 703 A.2d 426, 440 (Pa. 1998).
Appellant next argues that the PCRA court erred in failing to grant him an evidentiary hearing on his PCRA claims (Argument XXII). Appellant, however, does not identify which of his various issues warrant an evidentiary hearing. Rather, he asserts that, "based on the myriad material issues of fact requiring evidentiary resolution, it was error for the court below to dismiss Appellant's petition without granting a hearing first." Appellant's Brief at 94. Such a broad declaration of error is insufficient to warrant relief.
Appellant also argues that the PCRA court erred in denying his requests for discovery (Argument XXIII). He asserts that he sought "discovery of, inter alia, whether any witness received payments in return for their testimony as part of the District Attorney's witness protection program and the discovery provided to trial counsel as well as any other Brady material that exists in this case, and any notes or training policies on jury selection and the use of peremptory jury strikes in this and other cases." Appellant's Brief at 95. Appellant fails to specify what Brady materials he sought. Moreover, his entire argument in support of this claim is his assertion that the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office acknowledged making undisclosed payments and housing arrangements for witnesses in other cases. Such allegation falls woefully short of establishing entitlement to relief. In addressing a similar claim in Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000), we stated:
The petition fails to tie the broad allegations regarding the District Attorney's policy of paying witnesses to the witnesses in Appellant's own case. Allusions to discovery violations in other cases are insufficient to demonstrate that any such violations existed in this case. Appellant has not presented one iota of evidence, such as an affidavit from one of the witnesses in his case, to suggest that any of those witnesses received any economic benefits. We will not sanction a fishing expedition when Appellant fails to provide even a minimal basis for his claim. As Appellant fails to make a showing of exceptional circumstances pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 1502(e)(1), the court below did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant the motion.
746 A.2d at 591. Accordingly, Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the PCRA court abused its discretion in denying his requests for discovery.
Finally, Appellant contends that the cumulative effect of the errors he has alleged in his brief entitle him to relief (Argument XXI). Because we find no merit to any of Appellant's claims, their alleged cumulative effect does not warrant relief. See Commonwealth v. Blystone, 725 A.2d 1197, 1208-09 (Pa. 1999) ("No amount of failed claims may collectively attain merit if they could not do so individually.").
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the PCRA court.
Mr. Justice Castille files a concurring opinion in which Mr. Justice Eakin joins.
Mr. Justice Nigro files a concurring and dissenting opinion.
Mr. Justice Saylor files a dissenting opinion.
CONCURRING OPINION
MR. JUSTICE CASTILLE
FILED: July 6, 2005
I join the Majority Opinion, except for its discussion of appellant's layered claim of ineffective assistance of co
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|