Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Commonwealth v. Lloyd

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

May 22, 2013

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee
v.
DARNELL P. LLOYD, Appellant

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

Appeal from the PCRA Order September 5, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division No(s).: CP-51-CR-1110191-2002

BEFORE: LAZARUS, OLSON, and FITZGERALD, [*] JJ.

MEMORANDUM

FITZGERALD, J.

Pro se Appellant, Darnell P. Lloyd, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his first, timely Post Conviction Relief Act[1] ("PCRA") petition. He opines that trial counsel was ineffective by not filing a Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 motion, failing to have his trial severed from that of his co-defendant, and not challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Appellant further suggests his PCRA counsel was ineffective for not investigating his claims. We affirm.

We state the facts as set forth by this Court on direct appeal:

[A]t approximately 3:47 p.m. on May 7, 2002, as a result of [Appellant's] request to help him get revenge on a group of rivals, co-Defendant Raheem Revell ["Revell"] fatally shot Milton Young ["Young"] in the head and Erik Nicholas ["Nicholas"] in the chest, and shot and wounded Kevin Shaw. The shootings were committed in mid-afternoon at the busy intersection of Broad and Brown Streets in Philadelphia. [Appellant's] motive for conspiring to commit this crime with co-defendant Revell was retaliation for a fight that erupted at a basketball game whereby [Appellant] was injured.
[Appellant] was tried together with co-defendant [Revell] and on March 2, 2004, their trial ended when [the trial court] was required to declare a mistrial due to a hopelessly deadlocked jury. A second trial began with jury selection on June 1, 2005. On June 24, 2005, the jury returned its verdict, and [Appellant] was found guilty of [two counts of third degree murder, [2] and one count each of attempted murder[3] and criminal conspiracy[4]. On September 13, 2005, [the trial court] sentenced
[Appellant] to two concurrent sixteen (16) to thirty-two (32) year terms of imprisonment on the Murder bills, and a concurrent sentence of eight (8) to sixteen (16) years imprisonment on the Attempted Murder bill. No further penalty was imposed for Criminal Conspiracy. [Appellant] was represented at trial by F. Michael Medway, Esquire.
Counsel filed an appeal on September 27, 2005. After a delay obtaining the relevant trial transcripts, counsel filed a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) on October 11, 2005.[FN]
[FN]: Counsel filed a 1925(b) Statement reserving the right to review notes of testimony and raise "any other properly preserved appellate issue." [The trial court's] staff called counsel on numerous occasions to advise him that the notes of testimony were available, and to inquire whether or not counsel would file an amended 1925(b) statement. Counsel did not respond to [the trial court's] inquiries; therefore, since the notes of testimony were available for several months, and counsel was notified of this fact, and no amended 1925(b) statement was filed, [the trial court] finds any other possible issues that were preserved for appellate review are hereby waived.

Commonwealth v. Lloyd, No. 2781 EDA 2005 (unpublished memorandum at 1-2) (Pa. Super. May 8, 2007) (most alterations in original). On direct appeal, Appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, and this Court affirmed. Id. He filed a petition for allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court, which denied the petition on August 18, 2009. Appellant filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which denied same on April 19, 2010.

On March 18, 2011, [5] Appellant, pro se, filed a timely PCRA petition. In his petition, Appellant claimed trial counsel was ineffective for not filing a Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 motion and a motion to sever. Appellant's PCRA Pet., 3/18/11. He also alleged direct appeal counsel was ineffective for not obtaining the notes of testimony. Finally, Appellant alleged the court imposed a sentence greater than the statutory maximum.

The PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed a Turner/Finley[6] petition to withdraw on June 13, 2012. The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice on August 1, 2012. Appellant did not respond to the Rule 907 notice.[7] On September 5, 2012, the PCRA court granted counsel's Turner/Finley petition and dismissed Appellant's PCRA petition. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.