Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-1334-2003 COMMONWEAL TH 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., December 11,2006:-- On May 6, 2004, Brian T. Trimble entered a plea of guilty to criminal homicide, murder in the first degree.1 The plea was entered in satisfaction of all the charges 1 .. 18 Pa.C.S. S 2501 (a), 2502(1) and S 306. 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 workplace at Capital Blue Cross. On January the 2nd 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, which described ways to kill people and avoid arrest. On January the 6'h 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 9'h 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 ex~enses and $20,000 from his wife's life insurance payoff for committing the murder. On January the 10' of 2003, at approximately 4:30 p.m., the defendant met 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 the 10'h 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 the police. Finally, on May 9'h 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. CP-21-CR-1334-2003 against him.2 The Commonwealth agreed that it would not seek the death penalty. Petitioner was sentenced on May 6, 2004, as mandated by law, to undergo imprisonment in a state correctional institution for life.3 No post-sentence motion or direct appeal was taken from this judgment of sentence. On August 26, 2005, defendant 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 hearing was conducted on July 26, 2006. The issues have been briefed and argued and are ready for decision. Initially, it must be determined if this court has jurisdiction to grant petitioner relief based on the period of limitations set forth in the Post-Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9541 et seq. The Act provides in Section 9545(b): (1) Any petition under this subchapter, including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final, unless the petition alleges and the petitioner proves that: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or 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. 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 18 Pa.C.S. S 11 02(a)(1). The sentence dated from May 9,2003. -2- CP-21-CR-1334-2003 (iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply retroactively. (2) Any petition invoking an exception provided in paragraph (1) shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented. (3) For purposes of this subchapter, a judgment becomes final at the conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking the review. (4) For purposes of this subchapter, "government officials" shall not include defense counsel, whether appointed or retained. (Emphasis added. ) Petitioner was sentenced on May 6, 2004. When he did not file a post-sentence motion in this court or a direct appeal to the Superior Court by June 5, 2004, thirty days from the date of sentencing, the judgment of sentence became final. See Commonwealth v. Rojas, 874 A.2d 638 (Pa. Super. 2005). His petition for post- conviction relief was filed on August 26, 2005. Because the timeliness requirement in Section 9545(b) is jurisdictional in nature, we have no jurisdiction to grant petitioner relief unless he proves that one of the exceptions to the one year time-bar in Section 9545(b)(1 )(i), (ii), (iii) applies to him. See Commonwealth v. Pursell, 749 A.2d 911 (Pa. 2000). Petitioner is incarcerated at SCI Smithfield. He testified that he "filed [a post- conviction petition] sometime around the beginning of April of 2005, and I believe I never received a response on it, and then wrote to the Clerk of Courts indicating my request for a response, at which point I was told to file another PCRA." Defense Exhibit -3- CP-21-CR-1334-2003 No.1 contains a letter petitioner sent from SCI Smithfield to the Clerk of Court of Cumberland County, dated July 12, 2005: I submitted a PCRA on or about April 3rd, 2005. I have not yet received a response to the PCRA, and I was curious regarding when a response would be forthcoming. Thank you. Defense Exhibit No. 1 also contains a letter to Trimble from the Clerk of Court dated July 18, 2005, stating: Our office has not received any PCRA motion from you. As of the [sic] date, there has been no such type of motion filed on your case. If you would like to have one filed, please forward it [sic] our office. Please make sure you are sending it to the correct address. Our address is Clerk of Court Office, 1 Courthouse Square, Carlisle, PA 17013. To summarize: 1. Petitioner maintains that he sent a post-conviction petition to the Clerk of Court on or about April 3, 2005, two months before the one year period of limitations ended on June 5, 2005, which was one year from the date his judgment of sentence became final on June 5, 2004. 2. He waited over three months until July 12, 2005, to write to the Clerk of Court after receiving no information regarding his petition. This was over a month after the one year period of limitations ran on June 5, 2005. 3. After being promptly notified by the Clerk of Court by letter of July 18, 2005, that no PCRA petition had been filed, he filed a petition a month and a half later on August 26, 2005. In Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423 (Pa. 1997), the Supreme Court of -4- CP-21-CR-1334-2003 Pennsylvania adopted the prisoner mailbox rule for criminal appeals filed by pro se prisoners. The rule had previously been applied to administrative appeals. See Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 683 A.2d 278 (Pa. 1996). The mailbox rule provides that an appeal is filed either on the date the Clerk of Court receives it or the date it is mailed. In Jones, the Supreme Court stated: Next, we turn to the type of evidence a pro se prisoner may present to prove that he mailed the appeal within the deadline. As provided in Rule 1514, a Postal Form 3817, Certificate of Mailing, constitutes proof of the date of mailing. In Smith, we said that the "Cash Slip" that the prison authorities gave Smith noting both the deduction from his account for the mailing to the prothonotary and the date of the mailing, would also be sufficient evidence. We further stated in Smith that an affidavit attesting to the date of deposit with the prison officials likewise could be considered. This Court has also accepted evidence of internal operating procedures regarding mail delivery in both the prison and the Commonwealth Court, and the delivery route of the mail, to decide the last possible date on which the appellant could have mailed an appeal based on the date that the prothonotary received it. Miller v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 505 Pa. 8, 476 A.2d 364 (1984). Proof is not limited to the above examples and we are inclined to accept any reasonably verifiable evidence of the date that the prisoner deposits the appeal with the prison authorities. (Emphasis added.) Whether the Supreme Court would extend the prisoner mailbox rule to a jurisdictional statutory period of limitations for filing petitions for post-conviction relief is not an issue we have to decide because petitioner has not presented any reasonably verifiable evidence that he mailed a petition for post-conviction relief at SCI Smithfield in early April, 2005. Petitioner has not proven that one of the exceptions to the one year time bar in Section 9545(b) of the Post-Conviction Relief Act applies to him. His suggestion that a post-conviction petition he claims to have sent to the Clerk of Court -5- CP-21-CR-1334-2003 was lost in the mail does not prove that his failure to file a petition by June 5, 2005, was the result of interference by government officials in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States. We do not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition for post-conviction relief filed on August 26, 2005.4 Accordingly, the following order is entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of December, 2006, the petition of Brian Thomas Trimble for post-conviction relief, IS DENIED. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Jaime Keating, Esquire For the Commonwealth Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire For Petitioner 4 The issue petitioner raises is an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel based on: (1) failure to adequately investigate and prepare a defense to include failing to obtain full discovery, (2) a plea of guilty unlawfully induced because of a failure to explain the reasons for the plea and an inadequate explanation of the elements, nature and factual basis for the plea, (3) a plea unlawfully induced because of the failure to have suppressed an inculpatory statement made under duress and (4) his -6- CP-21-CR-1334-2003 :sal incompetence to plead guilty. -7- COMMONWEAL TH 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 December, 2006, the petition of Brian Thomas Trimble for post-conviction relief, IS DENIED. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Jaime Keating, Esquire For the Commonwealth Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire For Petitioner :sal