J-A28044-20 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : DERRICK DEON COBBS : : : Appellant No. 1614 WDA 2019 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 30, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-65-CR-0002715-2011 BEFORE: OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and McCAFFERY, J. MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED: MAY 7, 2021 Derrick Deon Cobbs (Appellant) appeals the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County’s dismissal of his petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).1 Appellant, who appears pro se, brings sixteen claims of error. We affirm.2 Appellant outlines his claims as follows: 1. Trial counsel’s failure to play “excerpts” of video at trial; 2. Trial counsel’s failure to object to double jeopardy with respect to Count Four; 1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. 2 Appellant sent the Court a handwritten letter entitled “Application for Relief” and dated January 10, 2020. Appellant’s Application for Relief. The gravamen of its complaint is that the facility is not adhering to its guidelines specifying that the medical staff at the facility should be notified after an inmate has skipped nine or more meals. See id. at 1. Because the relief requested is beyond this Court’s jurisdiction, his Application was denied without prejudice to his ability to seek relief in the appropriate forum on January 23, 2020. J-A28044-20 3. Trial counsel’s failure to address the [sufficiency] of the evidence [and] weight of the evidence; 4. Trial counsel’s failure to object to malicious prosecution; 5. Trial counsel’s coercion of [Appellant] not to testify; 6. Trial counsel’s failure to call witnesses to authenticate evidence. 7. Trial counsel’s failure to call a medical expert to rebut testimony relating to the victim’s injuries; 8. Trial counsel’s failure to call Sergeant at jail who interacted with [Appellant] and victim; 9. Trial counsel’s failure to request complete discovery; 10. Trial counsel’s failure to address [Appellant’s] alleged assault by prison staff during and after the incident; 11. Trial counsel’s failure to call alibi witness(es); 12. Trial counsel’s failure to investigate or interview various correctional officers involved in the incident as potential witnesses; 13. Trial counsel’s failure to object to leading questions or [improper cross-examination] of witnesses; 14. Trial counsel’s failure to object to the sufficiency of [authentication] of the videos shown at trial; 15. Trial counsel’s failure to appeal the [trial] court’s failure to give a simple assault [jury] instruction; and 16. Trial counsel’s failure to object to an illegal sentence. Appellant’s Brief at 10-11. Appellant has added two questions that do not directly appear in his Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal: -2- J-A28044-20 [A.] Should Appellant’s case be remanded due to his sentence of a mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 9714 which was later determined to be unconstitutional? [B.] Was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support the verdict of guilt at Count Three: Aggravated Assault (18 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 2702(d)(2)); and Count …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals