Com. v. Yates, E.

J-S74017-18 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. EMMANUAL YATES Appellant No. 2020 EDA 2018 Appeal from the PCRA Order entered May 16, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No: CP-23-CR-0008091-2013 BEFORE: LAZARUS, STABILE, and McLAUGHLIN, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 08, 2019 Appellant, Emmanuel Yates, appeals form the May 16, 2018 order dismissing his petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. We affirm. The PCRA court recited the pertinent facts and procedural history. On June 19, 2014, following a jury trial before the Honorable Gregory M. Mallon, Appellant was found guilty of robbery, criminal conspiracy to robbery, and possessing an instrument of crime. He was sentenced on August 13, 2014 to an aggregate term of seventy-nine (79) to one hundred fifty-eight (158) months of incarceration followed by ten (10) years’ probation. The day before trial, defense counsel filed a ‘Motion in limine for Correct Information Regarding the Alleged Victim, Abdul Diara’s Immigration Status and Criminal History.’ The motion requested the court to order the victim to submit to a fingerprint scan by the Criminal Investigation Division of the District Attorney’s Office to establish his true identity. The purpose of said request was to establish if the victim had a criminal record for crimen falsi which the defense could use at trial to challenge the victim’s truthfulness. During pre-trial investigation, counsel had J-S74017-18 discovered there was a man with the same name as the victim, living in Philadelphia who had a criminal record and therefore requested a fingerprint scan of the victim to determine if the victim was who he purported to be or was in reality the other man in Philadelphia with a criminal record for crimen falsi. In the motion, defense counsel also recognized that the Commonwealth had provided defense counsel with the victim’s full name, date of birth, address, social security number, and the fact that the victim did not have a criminal abstract. The court held argument on the Motion on June 17 and June 18, 2014. The court accepted exhibits, including photographs of the two men, and heard argument. The court also questioned the victim, outside the presence of the jury about his date of birth, criminal history, and immigration status. The court initially agreed to fingerprint the victim, but after the victim testified under oath and after the court received enlarged photographs of both men, the court denied the request to fingerprint the victim. PCRA Court Opinion, 8/13/2018, at 1-2. On October 25, 2015, this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence. Appellant did not seek allowance of appeal in our Supreme Court. On October 11, 2016, he filed his timely first PCRA petition. Appointed counsel filed an amended petition on August 23, 2017 asserting that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the victim’s identity and criminal history sooner than one day before trial. On April 18, ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals