Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-0716 criminalCOMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : CHRISTOPHER L. HAIGH : 94-0716 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., March 16, 1999:-- Petitioner, Christopher L. Haigh, filed a petition for relief under the Post- Conviction Hearing Act, 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9541 et seq. Counsel was appointed and a hearing was conducted on March 3, 1999. On May 23, 1995, petitioner was convicted by a jury on counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse,~ and indecent assault? On June 27, 1995, petitioner was sentenced on the count of indecent assault to pay the costs of prosecution. He was sentenced on the count of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse to undergo imprisonment in a state correctional institution for a term of not less than six and a half nor more than twenty years. Petitioner filed a post-sentence motion which was denied by an order, supported by a written opinion, dated August 16, 1995. He filed a direct appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania which affirmed the judgment of sentence by an order, supported by a memorandum opinion, dated March 15, 1996.3 1. 18 Pa.C.S. § 3123. 2. 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126. 3. 451 Pa. Super. 595 (1996). 94-0716 CRIMINAL TERM A petition for allowance of appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania was denied.4 The facts in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as set forth in the opinion in support of the order of August 16, 1995, are: On the evening of August 8 and the morning of August 9, 1994, the victim met defendant at a card party in Lower Allen Township. They left the party together in the early morning hours of August 9. They were in the victim's car which was parked next to the defendant's car. They kissed and the victim allowed defendant to touch her breasts. She then said she wanted to go. Defendant said aggressively that she "was not going anywhere." Defendant pulled the victim's car seat down and leaned over her. He pulled at her pants; she struggled; he choked her, and he finally got her pants off. He tried to insert his penis into her vagina and then into her anus. He put his finger in her anus. The victim continued to struggle. Defendant then grabbed the victim's head and put it on his penis. He said, "1 know you want it bitch -- you are going to suck it." The victim was afraid and opened her mouth. There was oral sex and defendant ejaculated in the victim's mouth. The victim then got the door of her car open and fell out. Defendant went to his car and left. The victim went to the home of an aunt who lived nearby. The police were called. The victim was taken to a hospital where an examination revealed two linear, bloody scratches on her neck. There were similar marks on her back and on her abdomen that did not bleed. A rape examination was conducted. Spermatozoa was found in a nasal mucus sample removed from the victim. When there is ejaculation in the mouth, spermatozoa is often ingested into the nasal mucus membranes,s In his unsuccessful direct appeal in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, petitioner raised three issues, (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, (2) an allegation of error in admitting evidence of his prior robbery conviction, and (3) an allegation of error in 4. 545 Pa. 668 (1996). 5. Petitioner testified at trial that there was consensual oral sex with the victim after she ask him if she could do it and he said "Yeah." -2- 94-0716 CRIMINAL TERM excluding evidence relating to his reputation. The standards for obtaining post- conviction relief are set forth in Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 538 Pa. 455 (1994). In his petition and at the post-conviction hearing defendant maintains that statements he made to the police were coerced and he was not given his Miranda warnings.6 Petitioner testified that he met the victim at a party. A police officer called him the day after the party and asked him what had happened between himself and the victim. The officer asked him if he had raped the girl, but he also told him that he was not in any trouble. The police officer said that he could not help him if he did not tell him what happened and could help him if he did tell him what happened. Petitioner testified that he told the police officer he had consensual sex with the victim. The officer then asked him to come to the police station to give a written statement. Petitioner testified that he asked the officer if he needed a lawyer and that the officer said that he did not, it was just procedural and he would be going home. Petitioner testified that he then went to the police station, was not given Miranda warnings, and was asked questions about his contact with the alleged victim. He told the police officer that he had consensual sex with the victim. He was told his Miranda rights and arrested. After the arrest, he gave a third statement to the police officer in which he told him that he had consensual sex with the victim. None of the statements that petitioner alleges he gave to the police were admitted against him at trial. Petitioner's trial counsel testified that he knew petitioner 6. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). -3- 94-0716 CRIMINAL TERM had spoken with the police and had told them he had consensual sex with the victim. Petitioner told him that he had consensual sex with the victim so that was the defense that was prepared for trial. We believe petitioner's trial counsel and find that he was not ineffective for not seeking to suppress any statements that petitioner made to the police that petitioner admitted were true and which, if believed, would have constituted a defense to the counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and indecent assault. Petitioner further questions the selection of his jury. Based on his testimony at the post-conviction hearing, his complaints are frivolous and provide no grounds for relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. Accordingly, the following order is entered. AND NOW, this I'o conviction relief, IS DENIED, Jaime Keating, Esquire For the Commonwealth Michael Scherer, Esquire For Petitioner : saa ORDER OF COURT day of March, 1999, the within petition for post- By the Court, Edgar ~ [~ayley, J. -4-