Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0001334-2003 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : BRIAN THOMAS TRIMBLE : CP-21-CR-1334-2003 IN RE: PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., July 23, 2009:-- May 6, 2004 On , Brian T. Trimble entered a plea of guilty to criminal homicide, 1 murder in the first degree. The facts set forth in the colloquy upon which the plea was entered, are: This defendant met Blaine Norris while they were working together at the Capital Blue Cross on Elmerton Avenue in Susquehanna Township, Pennsylvania. The defendant advised Blaine Norris of his growing unhappiness with his marriage, and at some point during the late fall, early winter of 2002, the defendant and Blaine Norris discussed killing Randi Trimble. During the first week of January, 2003, the defendant and Blaine Norris were constantly seen in contact with each other at their nd workplace at Capital Blue Cross. On January the 2 of 2003, this defendant sent Blaine Norris an e-mail from the internet site Overthrow.com. The e-mail was a manual entitled, Hit Man On-Line, th which described ways to kill people and avoid arrest. On January the 6 of 2003, Blaine Norris did a reconnaissance of the area around the victim’s home in East Pennsboro Township in order to find a place to park his vehicle while the murder was being committed. On Thursday, January th 9 of 2003, at approximately 4:00 p.m., Blaine Norris went to the Big K- Mart on the Fruitville Pike in Lancaster and purchased a black handled 6 inch fillet knife, a pair of black sweatpants, black crew socks, black sneakers, a black web-belt, a box of latex gloves, a black t-shirt a black – or excuse me, a dark blue hooded sweatshirt, and a pair of dark brown cloth gloves. Additionally, on that date, at the Wal-Mart store on Greason Road in Harrisburg, Blaine Norris bought an expandable backpack, blue and black in color with silver trim, and two camouflage masks. The defendant agreed to pay Blaine Norris for these expenses and $20,000 from his wife’s life insurance payoff for committing the murder. On th January the 10 of 2003, at approximately 4:30 p.m., the defendant met __________ 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2501(a), 2502(1) § 306. CP-21-CR-1334-2003 Blaine Norris at his home in East Pennsboro Township. Blaine Norris was carrying the black and blue backpack previously described, and inside he had the items he purchased the previous day at the Big K-Mart and Wal-Mart. The defendant and Blaine Norris then began to ransack the Trimble home to make the crime scene look like it had been burglarized. At approximately 5:15 p.m., the defendant departed the home in order to establish an alibi with another friend for the evening in the Elizabethtown Lancaster area. Blaine Norris remained, laying in wait in the home, now wearing the dark clothes, gloves, and the camouflage mask. At some time between 7:05 p.m. and 7:30 p.m., the defendant’s wife, Randi Trimble, entered her garage where she was attacked by Blaine Norris. Norris attempted to strangle Randi Trimble with an extension cord, and during the struggle the victim was able to get her hand between the cord and her neck, at which time the defendant began to stab Randi Trimble multiple times with his knife in various vital parts of her body until she died. I’m sorry. Blaine Norris did the stabbing, obviously. Blaine Norris then removed the dark clothing, gloves, mask, et cetera, and placed them back in the backpack and fled the scene. These items were eventually disposed of in a dumpster, and the knife used in the killing was thrown in a lake in Lancaster County. The defendant returned from his evening in Lancaster County by 8:29 p.m. on January th the 10 of 2003, and called 911 to report his wife’s homicide. During the 3 months following the murder, the defendant spent in excess of $30,000.00, which he received from his wife’s employers and the couple’s personal savings account. The money was spent on a new apartment, and numerous other personal items, to include a new car, wide screen TV, Stereo, and video game apparatus. During this period he was actively dating at least two other women, which aroused the suspicion of th the police. Finally, on May 9 of 2003, after consultation with legal counsel, this defendant gave the Cumberland County District Attorney’s office an 81 page statement in which he fully outlined the details of his conspiracy with Blaine Norris to murder his wife, Randi Trimble. 2 The plea was entered in satisfaction of all the charges against Trimble. The Commonwealth agreed that it would not seek the death penalty. Petitioner was __________ 2 The other charges were (1) criminal solicitation – criminal homicide – murder in the first degree, (2) criminal conspiracy – criminal homicide – murder in the first degree, (3) criminal attempt to insurance fraud, and (4) insurance fraud. -2- CP-21-CR-1334-2003 May 6, 2004 sentenced on , as mandated by law, to undergo imprisonment in a state 3 correctional institution for life to date from May 9, 2003. No post-sentence motion or August 26, 2005 direct appeal was taken from this judgment of sentence. On , Trimble filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Counsel was appointed and authorized additional time to file an amended petition. An amended petition was filed, and a July 26, 2006December hearing was conducted on . The petition was dismissed on 11, 2006November 28, 2008 , based on a finding that it was time barred. On , the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, after enlarging the record, vacated the order and remanded for additional consideration of whether, based on the prisoner mailbox rule, February 4, 2009 the petition was not time barred. On , we found that the petition for post-conviction relief was not time barred. From the evidence taken at the post- July 9, conviction hearing on the merits, a single issue was briefed and argued on 2009 4 . Should petitioner be allowed to withdrawn his plea of guilty to murder in the first degree because he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his plea was unlawfully induced as a result of a coerced confession given under duress which counsel should have moved to suppress. We find the following facts. Law enforcement authorities had amassed considerable evidence leading them to believe that Trimble was involved in the killing 3 Blaine Norris pled guilty on April 19, 2004, to criminal homicide, murder in the first degree. He was sentenced on that date to undergo imprisonment in a state correctional institution for life. -3- CP-21-CR-1334-2003 of 4 Petitioner raised some other issues in his pro se petition all of which are frivolous. -4- CP-21-CR-1334-2003 his wife on January 10, 2003. Investigators had discussed the killing with him at various times. On May 8, 2003, Lester Freehling, an investigator in the office of the District Attorney, had another non-custodial interview with Trimble. Trimble’s mother was present. The purpose was to go over inconsistencies in Trimble’s stories throughout the previous months. Freehling had authority from the District Attorney to tell Trimble that if he gave a complete and truthful statement the possibility of the death penalty would be taken off the table. Freehling had two syringes, one with Trimble’s name on it and the other with the name of Blaine Norris, which he showed to Trimble. He told him that the District Attorney had given the authority to take the possibility of a death penalty off the table in return for a true and correct statement. Trimble then answered some questions but as they neared the end he asked his mother to leave the room. Freehling said, “you didn’t kill your wife, did you?” Trimble said “no.” Freehling said “but you helped plan it, didn’t you?” Trimble said “yes.” Freehling asked “who killed your wife?” Trimble said “Blaine Norris.” Trimble then said he wanted to talk to an attorney. The interview was stopped. Trimble had something to eat. An experienced defense attorney arrived and talked privately with Trimble for about an hour. Freehling was then told that Trimble wanted to make a statement. Trimble was advised of Miranda rights with his attorney present. The District Attorney had arrived. With his attorney present at all times, a tape recorded session started with the District Attorney telling Trimble: -5- CP-21-CR-1334-2003 . . . I’m the elected District Attorney of Cumberland County. I’m here this evening with representatives of the East Pennsboro Township Police Department. The Cumberland County Criminal Investigation Division, Mr. Brian Trimble, his attorney James Jones. The purpose of this is establish an agreement with Mr. Trimble regarding potential offenses that are pending against him. Um, I have stated to Mr. Trimble that at the present time I as District Attorney am prepared to charge him as an accomplice to First Degree Murder. Such case if prosecuted successfully, because of the nature of the facts that we had determined regarding this case, could involve a contract murder, which is in fact an aggravating circumstances under the laws of Pennsylvania and could be grounds for seeking a death penalty against him. Given the status of this case at this time and based upon his cooperation I am prepared to enter an agreement with him which we are placing on the record at this time. I will state that, that agreement is that I will not seek the death penalty against Brian Trimble in exchange for the following: Mr. Trimble will be absolutely required to give truthful testimony regarding all of the circumstances surrounding the death of his wife. He will submit to a Polygraph at the request of the Bureau of Criminal Investigation to verify that facts that he provides us this evening. He will testify truthfully if required against one or more co-defendants which may have been involved in the death of his wife. He will this evening, with the assistance of his counsel, give a truthful proffer of verifiable facts regarding his involvement in the murder and all plans, agreements, information, and or plans to cover up the stated crime of murder of his wife, that he made with any accomplice who may have been working with him in perpetrating this crime. . . . Trimble then gave a detailed statement as to how and why he arranged with Blaine Norris to have his wife killed, his involvement with him when Norris killed his wife, and his involvement with him after the killing. Trimble was then allowed to leave. He was arrested the next day for the murder of his wife. On June 21, 2003, again with an attorney present, he gave a second tape recorded statement. On September 26, 2003, he testified under oath for the Commonwealth at the preliminary hearing of Blaine Norris. -6- CP-21-CR-1334-2003 The Post-Conviction Act sets forth the requirements for eligibility for relief which at 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9543(2), include: (ii) Ineffective assistant of counsel which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place. (iii) A plea of guilty unlawfully induced where the circumstances make it likely that the inducement caused by petitioner to plead guilty and 5 the petitioner is innocent. Commonwealth v. Jones, In 912 A.2d 268 (Pa. 2006), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stated: To succeed with a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that such ineffectiveness “in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(ii). We have interpreted this standard to require a petitioner to prove that: (1) the underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) counsel’s performance lacked a reasonable basis; and (3) the ineffectiveness of counsel caused appellant prejudice. Commonwealth v. Todaro, 549 Pa. 545, 701 A.2d 1343, 1346 (1997). The voluntariness of a confession is determined by the totality of the Commonwealth v. Templin, circumstances. 705 A.2d 759 (Pa. 2002). In determining voluntariness the issue is whether the interrogation was so manipulative or coercive that it deprived defendant of his ability to make a free and unconstrained decision to Id. Commonwealth v. Jones, confess. In 457 Pa. 423 (1974), the Superior Court of __________ 5 At the post-conviction hearing, Trimble testified that Norris came to him the week after the killing, confessed to him that he killed his wife, but said that if he told anyone he would blame the murder on him. Trimble made up an elaborate lie so he would not be the only one charged with his wife’s murder. He lied when he initially told Freehling that he helped plan the killing of his wife. He continued to lie during his two tape recorded confessions, when he testified for the Commonwealth at the preliminary -7- CP-21-CR-1334-2003 Pennsylvania stated: In judging whether the use of artifice, deception or fraud will invalidate a confession, we must look to the basic rationale behind the exclusion of coerced confessions. Courts will, of course, invalidate confessions resulting from a subterfuge that is likely to produce an untrustworthy confession. United States ex rel. Caminito v. Murphy, 222 F.2d 698 (2d Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 896; Commonwealth v. Walker, 433 Pa. 124, 249 A.2d 283 (1969). See generally, Anno., 99 A.L.R. 2d 772. In addition, the United States Supreme Court has offered another rationale for invalidating confessions. “The abhorrence of society to the use of involuntary confessions does not turn alone on their inherent untrustworthiness. It also turns on the deep-rooted feeling that the police must obey the law while enforcing the law; that in the end life and liberty can be as much endangered from illegal methods used to convict those thought to be criminals as from the actual criminals themselves. 6 The present case involved a murder in which the death penalty was applicable. We find that when Freehling told Trimble during the routine, non-custodial interrogation on May 8, 2003, during which Trimble’s mother was present, that in return for a truthful statement consideration of the death penalty would be removed, that did Morgan v. Indiana not render his inculpatory statement coerced. See , 587 N.E.2d 680 People v. Wright (In. Supreme Ct. 1992); , 469 N.E.2d 351 (Ill. App. 5 Dist. 1984). The use of the two syringes by Freehling to remind Trimble of the possible legal consequences for killing his wife, was artifice -- a stratagem that did not constitute subterfuge likely to produce an untrustworthy confession. The totality of circumstances hearing of Norris, and when he entered his plea of guilty to murder in the first degree. 6 The Judicial Code at 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9711(d)(2) provides that an aggravating circumstance which can warrant the imposition of the death penalty is: ”The defendant paid . . . another person or had contracted to pay . . . another person or had conspired to pay . . . another person for the killing of the victim.” -8- CP-21-CR-1334-2003 shows that Trimble’s inculpatory statement was voluntary. Furthermore, even if his inculpatory statement had been illegally coerced, his subsequent counseled statement on the same occasion, as well as his counseled statement on June 21, 2003, and his testimony under oath at the preliminary hearing of Norris on September 26, 2003, so attenuated any prior illegalities that any taint was sufficiently purged. See Commonwealth v. Cunningham, Commonwealth v. Cockfield, 471 Pa. 577 (1977); 465 Pa. 415 (1976). Therefore, because none of the inculpatory statements given by Trimble were suppressible, counsel was not ineffective in failing to file a motion to suppress prior to petitioner entering his plea of guilty to murder in the first degree. For the foregoing reasons, the following order is entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of July, 2009, the motion of petitioner for post- IS DENIED. conviction relief, By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Michelle Sibert, Esquire For the Commonwealth Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire For Petitioner :sal -9- COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : BRIAN THOMAS TRIMBLE : CP-21-CR-1334-2003 IN RE: PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of July, 2009, the motion of petitioner for post- IS DENIED. conviction relief, By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Michelle Sibert, Esquire For the Commonwealth Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire For Petitioner :sal