J-S43039-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ALBERT BRINKLEY : : Appellant : No. 2026 EDA 2021 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 24, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0014120-2011

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED MARCH 29, 2023 Appellant Albert Brinkley appeals from the order denying his timely first Post Conviction Relief Act1 (PCRA) petition. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in rejecting Appellant’s evidentiary challenge and his claims concerning ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

The underlying facts and procedural history of this case are well known to the parties. See PCRA Ct. Op., 7/1/22, at 1-11; see also Trial Ct. Op., 5/29/14, at 2. Briefly, Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder and related offenses following the 2011 shooting death of Quince Morant. On May 31, 2013, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. After this Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on direct appeal, our Supreme Court denied ____________________________________________

1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.

J-S43039-22

further review. See Commonwealth v. Brinkley, 2256 EDA 2013, 2015 WL 6935538 (Pa. Super. filed July 10, 2015) (unpublished mem.), appeal denied, 129 A.3d 1240 (Pa. 2015).

Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition on March 26, 2016.

Ultimately, after several delays and a bifurcated evidentiary hearing, the PCRA court issued an order dismissing Appellant’s petition. See PCRA Ct. Order, 8/24/21.

On September 2, 2021, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. The PCRA court also granted prior PCRA counsel leave to withdraw and appointed appellate counsel on Appellant’s behalf. Appellant subsequently filed a motion requesting an extension to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, which the PCRA court granted. Appellant filed a second request for an extension on November 29, 2021, which the PCRA court denied.

On appeal, Appellant filed an application to remand the matter to the PCRA court. This Court issued an order granting Appellant’s request on April 11, 2022. Therein, the Court directed Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) statement and instructed the PCRA court to issue a supplemental Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing Appellant’s claims. Both Appellant and the PCRA court complied with this Court’s remand order.

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues, which we have reordered as follows: 1. Did the [PCRA] court abuse its discretion and commit reversible error by finding that evidence, by way of stipulation, of police misconduct in other cases was not admissible pursuant to -2- J-S43039-22

Pa.R.E. 404(b), given that Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2) instructs that such evidence is admissible to demonstrate “motive, opportunity, [and] intent.”?

2. Was prior PCRA counsel ineffective in failing to investigate, interview, and present witnesses Sharad Dubose, Jerome Boyd, John Ashmore, and Ivory Matthews in preparation for PCRA evidentiary proceedings given that, after initially providing statements inculpatory to Appellant, the witnesses distanced themselves from, or outright rejected, the statements they gave to the police?

3. Was prior PCRA counsel ineffective in its relation to questioning Detective Jenkins about Elante Outterbridge’s status as a possible suspect? Raheim Hunter, who was interviewed by Jenkins, initially implicated Outterbridge as a suspect, yet prior PCRA counsel inexplicably failed to address this in his cross- examination of Jenkins[?]

4. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit reversible error by dismissing [A]ppellant’s claims regarding trial counsel’s ineffectiveness grounded in a conflict of interest[] and the appellate counsel’s failure to raise and thereby litigate this issue on appeal?

Appellant’s Brief at 4-5.

In reviewing an order denying a PCRA petition, our standard of review is well settled: [O]ur standard of review from the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to examining whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported by the evidence of record and whether it is free of legal error. The PCRA court’s credibility determinations, when supported by the record, are binding on this Court; however, we apply a de novo standard of review to the PCRA court’s legal conclusions.

Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1043 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citations omitted and formatting altered).

-3- J-S43039-22

Here, after reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the well- reasoned conclusions of the PCRA court, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court’s opinion.2 See PCRA Ct. Op. at 1-11. Specifically, we agree with the PCRA court that (1) the PCRA court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Appellant’s request to present evidence of a stipulation regarding police misconduct in an unrelated case; (2) Appellant failed to demonstrate that prior PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to interview witnesses who recanted their testimony at trial; (3) Appellant failed to establish that prior PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to cross-examine Detective Jenkins about Elaine Outterbridge’s status as a possible suspect; and (4) Appellant failed to establish that trial counsel had a conflict of interest that adversely affected his performance and, therefore, Appellant’s layered ineffectiveness claim against both trial counsel and direct appeal counsel was meritless. See id. at 4-11.

For these reasons, we conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief.

See Sandusky, 203 A.3d at 1043. Accordingly, we affirm.

Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

2 We note that the PCRA court’s opinion contains a typographical error which states that the initial Rule 1925(a) opinion was filed on January 28, 2021.

See PCRA Ct. Op. at 3. Our review of the record confirms that the PCRA court issued its initial opinion on January 28, 2022. See PCRA Ct. Op., 1/28/22.

-4- J-S43039-22

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 03/29/2023

-5- Circulated 03/06/2023 12:47 PM