IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT

Transcription

1 Received 9/29/ :13:23 PM Supreme Court Eastern District Filed 9/29/ :13:00 PM Supreme Court Eastern District 164 EM 2016 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT DONTE ROLLINS, : Petitioner : : APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO v. : FILE ORIGINAL PROCESS : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : NO. OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, : Respondent : EMERGENCY PETITION FOR : WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND : PROHIBITION RENEWED APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EMERGENCY PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF OF WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION TO THE PHILADELPHIA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE THOMAS G. SAYLOR AND JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT: Pursuant to Rule 3307 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Petitioner, Donte Rollins, through his undersigned counsel, hereby applies for leave to file original process in the form of a Renewed Emergency Petition for Extraordinary Relief of Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition. 1. This Court has authority to entertain this application pursuant to Rule 3307(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure and Section 721 of Pennsylvania s Judiciary and Judicial Procedure (42 Pa. C.S. 721 (Supreme

2 Court shall have original jurisdiction of mandamus or prohibition to courts of inferior jurisdiction )). 2. On July 5, 2016, Petitioner Donte Rollins filed a petition seeking Emergency Relief in the form of Writs of Prohibition and Mandamus to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, along with an application for leave to file the petition. 3. On September 1, 2016, this Court granted Mr. Rollins application for leave to file the petition and denied the petition without prejudice to re-file it. 4. Events that have since occurred in the lower court necessitate Mr. Rollins renewal of his previous petition. A copy of the proposed Renewed Emergency Petition for Extraordinary Relief of Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition is attached as Exhibit A. 5. The filing is necessary to resolve an ongoing injustice in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. As further explained in the attached petition, Mr. Rollins pending Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) Petition languishes despite agreement with the Commonwealth he is entitled to have his conviction vacated and be restored to his pre-trial bail status of house arrest. The assigned PCRA court has unnecessarily and, apparently, intentionally delayed proceedings, insisted on hearing from irrelevant witnesses despite both parties having rested on

3 the matter, and is blocking Mr. Rollins case from proceeding through the court system by refusing to rule upon the petition. 6. Because Mr. Rollins is without any other legal remedy, he seeks this Court s intervention. WHEREFORE, Petitioner Donte Rollins requests this Court accept the Renewed Emergency Petition for Extraordinary Relief of Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition as filed. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Michael Wiseman Michael Wiseman, Esq. Attorney No P. O. Box 120 Swarthmore, PA Dated: September 29, 2016 /s/ Marissa Boyers Bluestine Marissa Boyers Bluestine, Esq. Attorney I.D. No Nilam A. Sanghvi, Esq. Attorney I.D. No The Pennsylvania Innocence Project Temple University Beasley School of Law 1515 Market Street, Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA Counsel for Donte Rollins

4 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT DONTE ROLLINS, : Petitioner : : APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO v. : FILE ORIGINAL PROCESS : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : EMERGENCY PETITION FOR OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, : WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND Respondent : PROHIBITION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Marissa Bluestine, hereby certify that on this 29th day of September, 2016, I filed the foregoing by use of the PACFile Electronic Filing system and electronic mail on the: A. Taylor Williams, Esquire Legal Counsel Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, Philadelphia 1515 Market Street, Suite 1414 Philadelphia, PA Counsel for Respondent Court of Common Pleas Samuel Ritterman, Esquire Assistant District Attorney Philadelphia District Attorney s Office Three Penn Square Philadelphia, PA Counsel for the Commonwealth Honorable Rayford A. Means City Hall, Room 340 Philadelphia, PA, /s/ Marissa Boyers Bluestine Marissa Boyers Bluestine, Esq.

5 EXHIBIT A

6 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT DONTE ROLLINS, : Petitioner : : NO: v. : : EMERGENCY PETITION COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, : Respondent : RENEWED EMERGENCY PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF OF WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION TO THE PHILADELPHIA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE THOMAS G. SAYLOR AND JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT: Petitioner, Donte Rollins, through his undersigned counsel, files this Renewed Petition Requesting Emergency Relief. This petition renews and supplements the Emergency Petition Mr. Rollins filed on July 5, 2016 (No. 108 EM 2016). The Court denied that petition, without prejudice to Petitioner to pursue similar relief in this Court following the impending hearings before the common pleas court. Sept. 1, 2016 Order. Since this Court s September 1 Order, the lower court has again continued the case without taking action. Mr. Rollins, who remains unjustifiably incarcerated,

7 therefore again seeks this Court s intervention. In support, Mr. Rollins states as follows. Introduction This Court s immediate intervention is necessary to resolve an ongoing injustice. Donte Rollins is serving a sentence of 62.5 to 125 years for an attempted murder in which he played no role. Through several days of testimony supporting his Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition Mr. Rollins established even to the Commonwealth s satisfaction his trial counsel s stewardship fell far below minimal constitutional requirements rendering his conviction a nullity. Further, the Commonwealth agrees Mr. Rollins should be granted post-conviction relief and returned to his pre-trial bail status. Yet, despite this agreement between usual adversaries, Donte Rollins remains imprisoned potentially indefinitely because of the actions of Philadelphia Count Court of Common Pleas Judge Rayford Means. Judge Means has needlessly continued the matter (ostensibly to hear from irrelevant witnesses), rebuffed the parties attempts to make a contemporaneous record of the proceedings, and refuses to rule on the ripe and unopposed PCRA petition. As noted above, this conduct has continued even after Mr. Rollins sought relief from 2

8 this Court, with Judge Means twice continuing what was to be the final hearing date with no advance notice to the parties. This conduct is prolonging the incarceration of an innocent man, who at a minimum has demonstrated his entitlement to relief and release. This Court s intervention via the writs of prohibition and mandamus is required. The Commonwealth has joined undersigned counsel in various attempts to resolve this case, and has expressed no objection to the requests made herein. Jurisdictional Statement 1. This Court has original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus and prohibition pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S As explained below, because the lower court refuses to issue a final order on Mr. Rollins pending PCRA petition, there is nothing ancillary to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Factual and Procedural Background Prior to September 1, Mr. Rollins was convicted following a jury trial on December 4, 2007, of attempted murder with serious bodily injury and related charges. Mr. Rollins, who had no prior convictions, was sentenced April 17, 2008, to a term of imprisonment of 62.5 to 125 years. 3. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. 3

9 Commonwealth v. Donte Rollins, 1285 EDA 2008 (Pa. Super. Oct. 18, 2010). This Court denied leave to appeal. Commonwealth v. Donte Rollins, 620 EAL 2010 (Pa. Dec. 5, 2011). 4. On February 15, 2013, Mr. Rollins filed a counseled petition for PCRA relief primarily alleging trial counsel ineffectively failed to present his complete alibi to the jury. That evidence included live witnesses, surveillance footage of Mr. Rollins miles from the area of the shooting, sales receipts for purchases made, and cell phone records showing multiple calls on his cell phone during the time of the shooting. Mr. Rollins was and remains represented by undersigned counsel Michael Wiseman. 5. On March 4, 2015, undersigned co-counsel from the Pennsylvania Innocence Project (Marissa Boyers Bluestine and Nilam Sanghvi) entered their appearances for Mr. Rollins and, together with Mr. Wiseman, filed an amended PCRA petition adding a claim asserting Mr. Rollins actual innocence of the offense and additional unpresented alibi evidence developed after further investigation. 6. In the ensuing months, Mr. Rollins counsel met and communicated with members of the Philadelphia District Attorney s Office including Robin Godfrey, Chief of the PCRA Unit, and Mark Gilson, a veteran homicide prosecutor 4

10 and Chief of the Conviction Review Unit. The goal was to demonstrate to the Commonwealth Mr. Rollins innocence, as well as the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel. 7. As part of these communications, Mr. Rollins counsel opened their entire file, including trial counsel s file, to inspection by the Commonwealth. Recognizing the compelling circumstances of Mr. Rollins PCRA petition, counsel for both parties have worked cooperatively to resolve this case. 8. At the same time, Judge Means conducted hearings during which Mr. Rollins presented his full alibi including witnesses, surveillance video, documents, and cell phone records as well as trial counsel s testimony. Trial counsel presented no legally acceptable explanation for his failure to present the full alibi at trial. 9. Following trial counsel s testimony, the Commonwealth advised the undersigned that, while it had not arrived at a final position on Mr. Rollins innocence, it agreed Mr. Rollins had met his burden of showing counsel was ineffective with respect to the presentation of the alibi defense and he therefore is entitled to PCRA relief a new trial and return to his pre-trial bail status. 1 1 Mr. Rollins was on house arrest at the time of his trial and was remanded when the jury returned its verdict. 5

11 10. On April 29, 2016, counsel for the Commonwealth and Mr. Rollins reported to the PCRA court there were no further live witnesses to be presented by either side and both stipulated to the testimony of one additional witness, trial counsel s investigator Karim Shabazz. 2 The stipulation was made after consulting with Mr. Shabazz and stated Mr. Shabazz would testify he did no work on this case. (See Stipulation filed June 17, 2016, as a Miscellaneous Motion.) 11. Accordingly, counsel informed Judge Means both sides rested. Counsel also advised Judge Means the Commonwealth agrees Mr. Rollins received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and the District Attorney s Office believes, after many internal discussions with the trial prosecutor and other senior staff members, a new trial is required. In short, the Commonwealth agrees the Court should grant Mr. Rollins PCRA petition, vacate his convictions, restore him to his pre-conviction bail status, and relist the matter for retrial. 12. Even with the Commonwealth s position, Judge Means insisted he wished to hear from additional witnesses: the trial prosecutor; the assigned detective; and Mr. Shabazz, despite the stipulation. 3 Counsel asserted the testimony 2 During trial counsel s PCRA testimony, he indicated Mr. Shabazz typically worked as his investigator, but could not recall whether he used an investigator in this case. 3 Judge Means also said he wanted to hear from the detective who did the photo array, notwithstanding several witnesses testified during the hearings (and as was developed at trial) the 6

12 was unnecessary and irrelevant. Instead of scheduling a date for the witnesses testimony, the court directed counsel to ascertain the witnesses availability and continued the case for 60 days for that purpose. Of course the witnesses availability could have been determined in minutes. A continuance of any length of time much less for two months was wholly unnecessary. The court continued the matter until June 27, On June 17, 2016, Mr. Rollins filed a Motion for Resolution. (A copy of the motion is attached as Exhibit A.) Mr. Rollins pointed out the hearing was complete and neither side wished to present further evidence. This pleading recognized that a trial judge has inherent authority to sua sponte call witnesses, but in this instance Mr. Rollins objected to such witnesses being called as an abuse of discretion. Alternatively, Mr. Rollins implored the Court to conduct any additional testimony expeditiously in light of Mr. Rollins continued incarceration and the Commonwealth s agreement to vacation of Mr. Rollins conviction and his restoration to pre-trial release conditions. 14. The parties again appeared before Judge Means on June 27, Mr. Shabazz was also present, having been asked to attend by Mr. Rollins victim s grandmother identified Mr. Rollins at arrest. In other words, there was no photo array. 7

13 counsel. 15. Counsel for Mr. Rollins attempted to create a stenographic record that both sides stipulated to the Mr. Shabazz testimony, both sides have rested, no further witnesses need be called, both sides agree to relief, and to inquire about the motion for resolution. 16. The PCRA court refused to permit counsel to make a record, and sua sponte continued the case until August 29, 2016 to hear from Mr. Shabazz although he was present in the courtroom at the time. 17. When counsel asked again to make a record, the court refused saying counsel could do so in August. When counsel persisted, saying they would wait until all other business in the courtroom was completed to make a record, the court informed counsel they were dismissed. When counsel again attempted to create a stenographic record, the court ordered the sheriff to escort counsel outside. 18. The PCRA court set September 26, 2016, as a date to hear from the trial prosecutor and detective even though as both sides agree neither the trial prosecutor nor the assigned detective have any information relevant to the resolution of the legal issues presented in the PCRA petition. Of course, the trial prosecutor s office has already expressed its position on this case: relief should be 8

14 granted. Moreover, the trial prosecutor has no first-hand knowledge of the unpresented alibi evidence which forms the basis of Mr. Rollins PCRA petition. 19. On June 28, 2016, counsel sent a letter to Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Supervising Judge Leon W. Tucker and Administrative Judge Jacqueline F. Allen (with a copy to Judge Means) alerting them to the PCRA court s irregular and unusual conduct and seeking their advice and intervention. (A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit B.) 20. On June 29, 2016, counsel for Mr. Rollins and the Commonwealth met with Supervising Judge Tucker. Judge Tucker, while sympathetic to the issue, said he had no authority to intervene in the matter beyond having a conversation with Judge Means. 21. On July 5, 2016, Mr. Rollins filed an Emergency Petition for Extraordinary Relief with this Court, seeking this Court s intervention through the writs of prohibition and mandamus. Mr. Rollins asked the Court to: (a) issue a writ of prohibition to Judge Means prohibiting any further proceedings or continuances in this matter; and (b) issue a writ of mandamus to Judge Means requiring a ruling on Mr. Rollins pending PCRA petition within seven days of this Court s order. 22. On July 12, 2016, the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) filed a short letter with this Court stating only that Judge Means actions 9

15 were discretionary and that the Court has no advocacy interest other than in securing the appropriate evidence prior to decision. 23. On August 29, 2016, the parties again appeared before Judge Means, with trial counsel s investigator. Mr. Rollins, through counsel, objected to further proceedings as the parties had previously rested. 4 Mr. Rollins and the Commonwealth also re-affirmed to the PCRA court on the record their agreement that Mr. Rollins is entitled to relief. Counsel also requested the PCRA court rule on the outstanding Motion for Resolution (previously filed to attempt to resolve the matter). The PCRA court denied the Motion and overruled the objection. 24. Then, in testimony that took the lower court 120 days to arrange, but only five minutes to complete, the investigator confirmed he did not work on this matter precisely what the parties had stipulated to and advised the court of months earlier. See, e.g., N.T. 8/29/16, 19 ( Honestly, Your Honor, I m not familiar with doing work in this case. ). 25. Following this brief testimony, Mr. Rollins again objected to further continuances and asked the court to rule on the PCRA petition. Counsel pointed out the obvious: that the testimony of the assigned detective and trial prosecutor 4 The transcript of the August 29, 2016, proceedings is attached as Exhibit C. 10

16 could have no possible bearing on the outcome of the ineffectiveness of counsel claim. The court overruled the objection and scheduled the testimony of the irrelevant witnesses for September 26, 2016, even though counsel advised the court that they were available at any time before that date. The court again overruled the objection and suggestion for an earlier date, stating: We ll see you everyone on 9/26. N.T. 8/29/16, 35. Proceedings Since this Court s September 1, 2016 Order 26. From April 29, 2016 the date on which the court was advised that the Commonwealth agreed to relief and bail until September 26, 2016 the date on which the Court planned to hear irrelevant witnesses 150 days passed. 27. On September 26, 2016, counsel appeared at Judge Means courtroom as scheduled. Shockingly, counsel were informed that Judge Means was away on vacation. Thus, even though this Court implicitly expressed concern over the conduct of this litigation (as evidenced by the invitation to renew this motion after the next hearing date, if needed), the lower court took vacation time without providing an alternative early date for this pressing case notwithstanding the fact the hearing had been on the court s schedule since June 27, The court staff informed Mr. Rollins counsel they gave the Assistant District Attorney assigned to the case, Samuel Ritterman, a continuance date of 11

17 October 24, Mr. Rollins counsel informed the court staff the extended date was unacceptable and requested the case be listed for September 29, 2016, the first day Judge Means would be back. Court staff did so, and undersigned counsel informed the Commonwealth, who agreed to be present and have the trial prosecutor on call to appear that day as well. The assigned detective also accepted service of a subpoena to appear on September 29, Today, September 29, 2016, counsel for Mr. Rollins and the Commonwealth again appeared at Judge Means courtroom as scheduled. This time, they were informed that Judge Means would not be in because he extended his time off due to the rainy weather. Again, no notice was given of this continuance. Counsel again requested the case be relisted for the first day the judge would return from vacation. Counsel were advised that the Court had specifically directed court staff to give this case the date of October 24, Obviously, counsel were not able to make a record, the jurist not being present in the room, but counsel nonetheless expressed their objection to this long date and insisted on an earlier date. Their insistence on an earlier date was to no avail, and this matter is listed for October As of the date of this filing, Mr. Rollins has been wrongly incarcerated for 153 days since the Commonwealth agreed his conviction should 12

18 be vacated and he should be released on house arrest. By October 24, 2016, he will have been so imprisoned a wasteful 178 days and 1,347 days since he initially filed his PCRA petition with no end in sight. And, October 24, 2016, will be nearly one year from the first listed PCRA hearing in this matter, November 6, 2015 a hearing the PCRA court, without explanation, continued to November 20, See Rescheduling Notice (attached as Exhibit D) Counsel can only conclude the lower court is not proceeding in good faith. In addition to this unjustifiable period of additional incarceration, counsel are deeply concerned the court will engage in further delay beyond October 24 in deciding the matter after hearing from the remaining irrelevant witnesses. 32. Mr. Rollins has attempted to secure his agreed-upon relief through a variety of means without success. No other legal avenue is available to prevent his prolonged and potentially limitless wrongful incarceration. It is precisely this situation for which writs of mandamus and prohibition exist. A Writ of Prohibition Is Required to Prevent Further Injustice 33. This Court should grant a writ of prohibition to prevent the PCRA court from continuing to unnecessarily delay proceedings, from calling irrelevant 5 The November 20, 2016, hearing was also continued because Mr. Rollins was not brought in from SCI Graterford, further showing the problems with the PCRA court s handling of this case. 13

19 witnesses, and from blocking Mr. Rollins case from proceeding through the court system. 34. This Court applies a two-part test to determine whether a writ of prohibition should be granted: (1) there must be no adequate remedy at law; and (2) the requested relief must be necessary to secure order and regularity in judicial proceedings. Glen Mills Sch. v. Ct. Com. Pl. of Phila. County, 520 A.2d 1379, 1381 (Pa. 1987) (quoting Capital Cities Media, Inc. v. Toole, 483 A.2d 1339, (Pa. 1984)). A writ of prohibition is to be used with great caution and forbearance. Carpentertown Coal & Coke Co. v. Laird, 61 A.2d 426, 430 (Pa. 1948). 35. An extraordinary writ of prohibition is appropriate when a lower court acts outside its jurisdiction including when a court has abused or may abuse its discretion. Pirillo v. Takiff, 341 A.2d 896, (Pa. 1975). If the trial judge has acted in a blatantly unlawful manner, petitions for writs of prohibition may be granted. Id. at 900. It is enough where a court abuses its discretion in rendering a decision required of it by law. Cf. Com. ex rel. Specter v. Shiomos, 320 A.2d 134, 136 (Pa. 1974) (issuing writ of prohibition reversing lower court decision to grant defense counsel discovery of victim s medical records in rape case). 14

20 36. This is such a case. The PCRA court has abused its discretion in denying Mr. Rollins undisputed right to make an accurate record of his PCRA proceeding and to have a decision rendered on his PCRA petition. 37. All parties have an unqualified right to ensure accurate records of proceedings in open court. See Pa. R. Crim. P. 115(a) ( In court cases, after a defendant has been held for court, proceedings in open court shall be recorded. ). The Code of Judicial Conduct echoes this by requiring judges to ensure the right to be heard. 207 Pa. Code 2.6(A) (2016) ( A judge shall accord to every person or entity who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person or entity s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. ). 38. Mr. Rollins continued incarceration clearly meets the requirements for issuance of a writ of prohibition. Mr. Rollins has taken every conceivable step to address the matter to no avail. So long as the PCRA court continues its capricious actions, Mr. Rollins is without legal remedy to address the situation. He cannot make a record; cannot advance the case in the Court of Common Pleas; and cannot even take an appeal, as the PCRA court refuses to dispose of the matter. 39. In refusing to allow a record to be made of proceedings, in insisting on continuing a matter far longer than necessary to rule on an uncontested petition, and in demanding to hear from witnesses who can shed no light on issues at hand, 15

21 the PCRA court continues to abuse its discretion to the point of acting in a blatantly unlawful manner. To ensure order and regularity in judicial proceedings, a writ of prohibition barring any delay must issue forthwith. A Writ of Mandamus Is Required to Allow the Case to Proceed 40. To effectuate the writ of prohibition, this Court should issue Mr. Rollins a writ of mandamus to the PCRA court requiring it to fulfill its judicial responsibilities and rule promptly upon Mr. Rollins PCRA petition. 41. This Court has, when required to effectuate justice, issued writs of mandamus to lower courts to rule upon pending PCRA proceedings. See, e.g., Jones v. Ct. Com. Pl. of Phila. County, 108 A.3d 1279 (Pa. 2015) (172 EM 2014); Brown v. Ct. of Com. Pl. of Phila. County, 84 A.3d 1057 (Pa. 2014) (176 EM 2013). 42. Mandamus lies to compel [official] performance of a ministerial act or mandatory duty where there is a clear legal right in the [petitioner], a corresponding duty in the [respondent], and want of any other adequate and appropriate remedy. Bronson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 421 A.2d 1021, 1023 (Pa. 1980). Mr. Rollins meets all requirements. 16

22 43. It is beyond dispute Mr. Rollins has a right to have his petition ruled upon. This is particularly true where all parties agree relief and his restoration to his pre-trial bail status is appropriate and legally required. 44. Moreover, the PCRA court s duty to rule upon a pending petition particularly where relief is agreed upon by parties could not be clearer. Canon 2.5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires all judges to perform judicial and administrative duties, competently and diligently. 207 Pa. Code 2.5(A) (2016). Although the canons are aspirational, they describe the type of conduct to which a judicial officer will be required to conform and that a departure will occasion a censure. Matter of Cunningham, 538 A.2d 473, 482 (Pa. 1988). 45. As discussed above, Mr. Rollins is without available legal remedy. Until the PCRA court rules upon his pending PCRA petition, there is no appealable final or interlocutory order. Should the court grant the petition, Mr. Rollins would be released from custody and the matter listed promptly for retrial or even dismissal once the Commonwealth completes its review of his claim of innocence. Should the court deny the petition notwithstanding the agreement from the Commonwealth to relief, Mr. Rollins would have a final appealable order. Although he attempted to obtain administrative relief through the Court of 17

23 Common Pleas, no relief was provided. There are no other avenues available to advance Mr. Rollins rights. 46. To be clear, Mr. Rollins is not asking this Court to direct the PCRA court to issue a particular order, but simply to require the court to fulfill its judicial duties by promptly disposing of his PCRA petition, one way or the other. 47. The evidence presented through the PCRA hearings establishes Donte Rollins did not participate in the shooting for which he was convicted. Even aside from the evidence of his absolute innocence of the crime, both sides in this adversarial proceeding agree he is, at a minimum, entitled to have his conviction vacated and be restored to his pre-trial status. The continuation of this matter without resolution constitutes outrageous extra-judicial conduct which must be remedied immediately. This Court should, without delay, issue writs of prohibition and mandamus to restore confidence and value to the proceedings below. Request for Immediate Hearing 48. Mr. Rollins requests this Court issue the requested writs immediately. 49. Should this Court decide a hearing is necessary, Mr. Rollins requests it be convened without delay before the full Court or a single Justice of the Court. 18

24 WHEREFORE, Petitioner Donte Rollins requests this Court: 1. Issue a Writ of Prohibition to Respondent prohibiting any further continuances or proceedings in this manner; and 2. Issue a Writ of Mandamus to Respondent requiring a ruling upon Mr. Rollins pending PCRA petition within 7 days of this Court s order. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Michael Wiseman Michael Wiseman, Esq. Attorney No P. O. Box 120 Swarthmore, PA /s/ Marissa Boyers Bluestine Marissa Boyers Bluestine, Esq. Attorney I.D. No Nilam A. Sanghvi, Esq. Attorney I.D. No The Pennsylvania Innocence Project Temple University Beasley School of Law 1515 Market Street, Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA Counsel for Donte Rollins Dated: September 29,

25 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT DONTE ROLLINS, : Petitioner : : NO: v. : : EMERGENCY PETITION COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, : FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, : Respondent : VERIFICATION The facts set forth in this Motion are true and correct to the best of the undersigned s personal knowledge, information, and belief and are verified subject to the penalties for unsworn falsification to authorities under Pennsylvania Crimes Code Section 4904 (42 Pa. C.S. 4904). /s/ Marissa Boyers Bluestine Marissa Boyers Bluestine, Esq.

26 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT DONTE ROLLINS, : Petitioner : : NO: v. : : EMERGENCY PETITION COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, : FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, : Respondent : CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Marissa Bluestine, hereby certify that on this 29th day of September, 2016, I filed the foregoing by use of the PACFile Electronic Filing system and electronic mail on the following: A. Taylor Williams, Esquire Legal Counsel Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, Philadelphia 1515 Market Street, Suite 1414 Philadelphia, PA Counsel for Respondent Court of Common Pleas Samuel Ritterman, Esquire Assistant District Attorney Philadelphia District Attorney s Office Three Penn Square Philadelphia, PA Counsel for the Commonwealth Honorable Rayford A. Means (via hand delivery) City Hall, Room 340 Philadelphia, PA, /s/ Marissa Boyers Bluestine Marissa Boyers Bluestine, Esq.

27 EXHIBIT A 22

28 FILED 06/17/ :19:53 PM Post Trial Unit By: N. LOW The Pennsylvania Innocence Project By: Marissa Boyers Bluestine, Legal Director Attorney No Nilam A. Sanghvi, Staff Attorney Attorney No Temple University Beasley School of Law 1515 Market Street, Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA Michael Wiseman Attorney No P.O. Box 120 Swarthmore, PA IN THE PHILADELPHIA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : Respondent : CP-51-CR CR : vs. : NCD: 6/27/2016 : DONTE ROLLINS, : Petitioner : PETITIONER S PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RESOLUTION TO THE HONORABLE RAYFORD A. MEANS, PRESIDING IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION FOR THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA: Petitioner, Donte Rollins, through counsel, moves for resolution of his pending Petition for PCRA relief and states the following in support.

29 1. During several days of hearings, witnesses called by Mr. Rollins confirmed the impossibility of Mr. Rollins involvement in the shooting. Further, this Court saw numerous objectively reliable exhibits corroborating those witnesses testimony. The Court is well aware the jury who determined Mr. Rollins guilt neither heard the witnesses testimony nor saw that evidence. 2. Significantly, the Court also heard from trial counsel. Because trial counsel offered no objectively reasonable explanation for the truncated investigation of Mr. Rollins alibi, or for his failure to present the full alibi to the jury, the Commonwealth agrees Mr. Rollins is entitled to relief on his pending Petition. Thus, from the perspective of both parties, the hearing is complete and should be resolved in Mr. Rollins favor. 3. In addition to what was presented in Court, all counsel have worked cooperatively throughout the PCRA proceedings; Mr. Rollins counsel provided their entire file to the Commonwealth and met with the head of the District Attorney s Conviction Integrity Unit. Further, the District Attorney held a series of internal discussions with senior staff to review the case, resulting in the Commonwealth s agreement to relief for Mr. Rollins. 4. On April 29, 2016, counsel for the Commonwealth and Mr. Rollins told the Court there are no further witnesses to be presented by either side. 2

30 Counsel also told the Court the Commonwealth agrees Mr. Rollins received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and they believe, after many internal discussions with the trial DA and other senior staff members, a new trial is required. In short, the Commonwealth agrees the Court should grant Mr. Rollins PCRA petition, vacate his convictions, restore him to his pre-conviction bail status, and send this matter to a trial room for retrial. 5. Despite being presented with the parties dispositive positions on April 29, the Court took no action; it did not order the agreed-upon relief. Despite the parties agreement that no further evidence is needed to address the ineffectiveness of counsel claims and that Mr. Rollins has met his burden of proof, the Court indicated it wanted additional witnesses called (the trial prosecutor and assigned detective) and set June 27, 2016 (a two month continuance from the last date) to determine the status of these witnesses. 6. Mr. Rollins had been in prison for 1,169 days from filing his PCRA Petition to when the Commonwealth informed the Court it agreed to relief on April 29, As of June 27, 2016, he will have been in prison for 1,228 days since filing his Petition. 7. Mr. Rollins objects to the Court calling further witnesses. While a court has authority to call its own witnesses, Commonwealth v. DiPasquale, 230 3

31 A.2d 449, (Pa. 1969) ( As a general rule a trial judge may in the exercise of a sound discretion call and examine witness of his own accord ), it is also true that in exercising this power, a wise discretion should be utilized, not only as to whether witnesses should be called by the court itself, but also as to the extent and manner of the examination permitted. Id. (emphasis added). 8. Mr. Rollins submits that here where all parties agree the record is complete and the witnesses proposed will not further the factual inquiry but will delay resolution of this matter, prolonging Mr. Rollins incarceration it would be an abuse of discretion to conduct further PCRA proceedings. 9. Accordingly, Mr. Rollins moves for this Court to resolve the matter. It is time for the Court to rule on the Petition by either agreeing with and ordering the resolution proposed by the parties, or denying relief so an immediate and expected to be unopposed appeal may be taken. 10. Should the Court deny the relief requested and insist on hearing from unnecessary witnesses, given the significant delay in resolution of this Petition the Court should take the testimony immediately and as soon as practical. 1 Following that testimony, if any, the Court should rule on the Petition the day testimony is 1 Mr. Rollins earnestly hopes the Court will not wish to hear from additional witnesses. But in the event the Court wishes to, Mr. Rollins will subpoena the two witnesses identified by 4

32 complete. WHEREFORE, Donte Rollins requests this Court forthwith resolve these proceedings in: A. Granting the agreed-upon relief by vacating Mr. Rollins convictions, restoring him to his pre-conviction bail status, and sending this matter to a trial room; or, B. Resolving this matter by denying the relief requested despite the agreement of the parties. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Michael Wiseman Michael Wiseman, Esq. Attorney No P. O. Box 120 Swarthmore, PA Marissa Boyers Bluestine, Esq. Attorney I.D. No Nilam A. Sanghvi, Esq. Attorney I.D. No The Pennsylvania Innocence Project Temple University Beasley School of Law 1515 Market Street, Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA Counsel for Donte Rollins the Court for June 27,

33 IN THE PHILADELPHIA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : Respondent : CP-51-CR : vs. : : DONTE ROLLINS, : Petitioner : VERIFICATION The facts set forth in this Motion are true and correct to the best of the undersigned s personal knowledge, information, and belief and are verified subject to the penalties for unsworn falsification to authorities under Pennsylvania Crimes Code Section 4904 (42 Pa. C.S. 4904). Marissa Boyers Bluestine, Esq.

34 IN THE PHILADELPHIA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : Respondent : CP-51-CR : vs. : : DONTE ROLLINS, : Petitioner CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Marissa Bluestine, hereby certify that on this 17th day of June, 2016, I filed the foregoing by use of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Criminal Electronic Filing system and caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing to be served on the following person by United States mail, First Class, postage prepaid: Samuel Ritterman, Esquire Assistant District Attorney Philadelphia District Attorney s Office Three Penn Square Philadelphia, PA Marissa Boyers Bluestine, Esq.

35 EXHIBIT B

36 I at Temple University Beasley School of Law 1515 Market Street, Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA Richard C. Glazer Executive Director Marissa Boyers Bluestine Legal Director June 28, 2016 Honorable Jacqueline F. Allen Administrative Judge Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas City Hall, Room 516 Philadelphia, PA, Facsimile: Honorable Leon W. Tucker Supervising Judge Trial Division, Criminal Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Juanita Kidd Stout Justice Center, 1201 Philadelphia, PA, Facsimile: VIA U.S. MAIL AND FACSIMILE Re: Commonwealth v. Donte Rollins (PCRA) CP- 51 -CR Assigned judge: Hon. Rayford Means Dear Administrative Judge Allen and Supervising Judge Tucker: We write to seek your advice and assistance regarding a criminal matter pending in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. We take this admittedly unusual step of seeking the involvement of the administrative authorities of this Court in an individual case to address an ongoing injustice. As explained below, the PCRA judge is violating fundamental rules of procedure by, among other things, refusing to permit counsel to make a contemporaneous record. Moreover, although the Commonwealth and defense counsel agree as to the proper resolution of the matter including returning our client to his pre -trial house arrest status -the court's behavior is causing Mr. Rollins to remain improperly incarcerated. By way of background, Mr. Rollins was convicted of participating in a 2008 shooting that paralyzed a 6 -year old boy. trial, his counsel (Nino Tinari) presented some alibi evidence. The jury convicted Mr. Rollins on December 4, 2007, and Judge Means sentenced him to 62 %z years incarceration on April 17, Mr. Rollins filed a Post -Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition alleging, among other errors, Mr. Tinari's constitutional ineffectiveness for failing to present the entire alibi. And, in the view of the undersigned, Mr. Rollins was not only the victim of ineffective counsel, he is innocent of the crime.

37 I I The PCRA court conducted several days of hearings at which Mr. Rollins' full alibis was presented. Mr. Tinari also testified. Mr. Tinari failed to provide a legally acceptable explanation for his failure to present the full alibi. Following the completion of all evidence, the court ordered the parties to disclose any remaining witnesses (See Order docketed February 26, 2016). The Commonwealth filed a letter stating it had no additional witnesses to present. (See Letter Brief, filed March 9, 2016). Mr. Rollins filed a statement that only one witness remained trial counsel's investigator who would testify he performed no work on this case.'- (See Offer of Proof as to Remaining Witnesses filed as a Miscellaneous Motion March 25, 2016). The Commonwealth and counsel later stipulated to that witness' testimony. (See Stipulation filed as a Miscellaneous Motion, June 17, 2016). For months, Mr. Rollins' counsel and the Commonwealth have worked cooperatively to investigate and resolve this matter. Mr. Rollins' counsel provided open access to their file, including trial counsel's materials. Counsel met with the head of the District Attorney's Conviction Review Unit (CRU) and have had on -going communications with him, as well as with the Chief of the PCRA Unit. After internal discussion among senior staff within the District Attorney's Office, including the CRU, the Commonwealth informed counsel that while they were still considering Mr. Rollins' claim of innocence, they agree he met his burden with respect to showing the constitutionally deficient performance of his trial counsel. As a result, the Commonwealth agrees Mr. Rollins is entitled to the relief sought vacation of his conviction and sentence and restoration to his pre -trial bail status. On April 29, 2016, at a sidebar conference in court, all counsel informed the PCRA court the parties rest. In addition, the Commonwealth told the court it agreed relief is legally required and appropriate. Despite this presentation, the court insisted it wished to hear from additional witnesses, none of whom is relevant to the issues in the PCRA Petition. The court relisted the matter for 60 days (June 27) for the sole purpose of determining witness availability for a hearing.3 On June 17, 2016, counsel filed a Motion for Resolution asking the PCRA court to rule upon the now -unopposed PCRA Petition. Counsel faxed a copy to the PCRA court's chambers. Alternatively, counsel asked that should the court wish to hear from these witnesses it do so quickly, so Mr. Rollins would either be granted the relief to which he is The full alibi included witnesses who were with Mr. Rollins, as well as documentary and video evidence that the jury never saw or heard. 2 During his testimony, Mr. Tinari claimed not to recall whether his investigator worked on this matter. 3 Although a court has authority to call its own witnesses, Commonwealth r. DiPasquale, 230 A.2d 449, (Pa. 1969) ("As a general rule a trial judge may in the exercise of a sound discretion call and examine witness of his own accord "), it is also true that "in exercising this power, a wise discretion should be utilized, not only as to whether witnesses should be called by the court itself, but also as to the extent and manner of the examination permitted." Id. (emphasis added). The court's conduct in this matter is an abuse of discretion. Page 2 of 4

38 I I entitled, or, conversely, so we may take an appeal of a final order. (A copy of the Motion is enclosed to provide further context and background.) Counsel returned to court yesterday, June 27, While waiting for the court to reach the matter, Mr. Tinari's investigator the witness whose testimony for whom the parties reached a stipulation appeared. The court interrupted the matter at bar and announced the Rollins case would be continued until August 29, 2016 to hear from the investigator (who was standing next to him at the time). The court gave no explanation why the witness could not have been called then, or why such a long continuance was required. When defense counsel tried to make a stenographic record of the stipulation between counsel as to the witness' testimony, the agreement as to relief, and inquire about the pending Motion for Resolution, among other matters, the court refused, saying they could do so on August 29. While the room was busy, it was only 10:15 AM when the court took these actions. Counsel offered to stay until all pending matters for the day were disposed to make their record. The court again refused. When counsel continued to attempt to create a stenographic record the court dismissed counsel and directed the Sheriff to escort them from the courtroom. The court's refusal to permit the making of a record is particularly troubling in view of gross inaccuracies in the official docket. Indeed, the docket entries for yesterday erroneously indicate the court granted a "Motion for Continuance," when in fact neither party made such a request' In sum, we are faced with a judge who is continuing the case for no legally valid reason to ostensibly hear from irrelevant witnesses when the parties agree relief is required. At the same time, the court is prohibiting counsel from making a contemporaneous record of the conduct of the proceedings while the court's docket contains materially inaccurate entries. In the meantime, our client continues to be held in violation of his rights under the state and federal constitutions. We hope Your Honors can attempt to resolve this matter, informally if possible, and without the time required to seek appropriate writs from an appellate court. In descending order, we would seek a direction to the trial judge to forthwith grant or deny Other recent Docket inaccuracies include the following: There is no listing for April 29, There should be a Docket Entry for that date reflecting the Court was informed both parties agree to relief, but the Court continued the matter sue: apunte. Present for the Commonwealth were Robin Godfrey, Esquire and Samuel Ritterman, Esquire. Present for Mr. Rollins was Marissa Boyers Bluestine, Esquire. There is a docket listing for June 13, 2016 reflecting an Order Granting Motion for Continuance, and noting counsel's appearance in court. The case was not listed for that date, no such motion was filed, and counsel were neither required to be present, nor were they present. r Similarly, there is a docket listing for June 20, 2016 reflecting an Order Granting Motion for Continuance, and noting counsel's appearance in court. The case was not listed for that date, no such motion was filed, and counsel were neither required to be present, nor were they present. Page 3 of 4

39 the agreed -upon relief or, alternatively, to hear from the irrelevant witnesses forthwith and to thereafter dispose of this matter one way or the other the same day. We are of course happy to meet with Your Honors along with the Commonwealth's representatives to answer your questions or provide any further information. We sincerely appreciate your consideration of this matter. CD O_ d. p q,, I I X a CA t; a 2' A

40 EXHIBIT C

41 1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 2 FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.e, 3 4 CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION 5 6 COMMONWEALTH. 7 VS.. 8 DONTE ROLLINS : CP-51-CR COURTROOM 705 STOUT CENTER FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE 1301 FILBERT STREET PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA MONDAY, AUGUST 29, B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE RAYFORD A. MEANS, J HEARING 24 25

42 W VJ W N NJ N N N N N N N IJ IJ -- O VD 00 J D\ LA a W N -- O v000 JDNLA A W IJ-- OVD00J DN LnP W IJ -- rj O 1 Cl O D (D r IM O rf N S t" Fi V) C7 Z - to d b 1-1) H (D 73 7 C7 0) rt O O G 7y D ;cl (n Fi I--' > M CO O t" Fs C L*] z (D H 0 to (D - (I) C*] CI a b N C 5 F-I rt M O in J=I Fs m 7J F'- x rt N (D N F-I n rt V] O O 0 v z F' - í FS m n C r rt r U] N F'- IO b Crl rt O (-i m LC O In Ft cn N rt N (D W n rt O H O P. Fs (D i-- N n r rt 7 Cl 3 C C*1 r F+ H IA til > Z - Ui (1" b O Fi II 7J m Lc

43 IJ IJ IJ IJ N IJ VI a w N O 1/40 00 w IJ -- O O CO J ON lit a W IJ.-. N O W ;U

44 J T U A W N - THE COURT: i I I i I I I i 1 I I i All right. VI A IN Ñ - O o 00 l W N - O o 00 I want to ask that -- before we start the hearing. We had some problems with the microphones. I ask that counsel remain seated because we have mics placed all in there. The stenographer has a much easier time hearing when everybody's remained seated at the desk. So for any direct examination, cross -examination, I'd ask that you remain seated during that process. This is the case of Commonwealth vs. Donte Rollins. This is a PCRA Hearing that has had a four or five, I'd say listings in the case of the -- Mr. Rollins presented his witnesses in his case. I think Mr. Rollins testified. He had some family members testify. He had some neighborhood people he knew from the community who testified as well. The Defense rested. The Commonwealth rested, did not call any witnesses. In the interest of just, trying to make

45 y O 1/ (7N LA A La N -- t a determination as to the truth, the truth determining process, I thought it was incumbent to hear from other people. I was shocked that n other -- none of the witnesses I thought about ere even called by either side, but there it is. So we continue on in the truth determining process to see what is and what is not. MS. CLANCEY: See you later. THE COURT: See you, Michelle. See you tomorrow? MS. CLANCEY: Yes, I'll be here all o week. THE COURT: would reach out and I So I had told both sides I wanted to hear from an investigator who has been summoned here who is in the CJC. His name first occurred to me when they -- there was a negotiated stipulation. And my -- N N IJ N IJ V A W IJ - O VD 00 I was wondering why would you stipulate to something when a guy is in the building every day. So that's when his name first come up, Kareem Shabazz. So at this point, Mr. Shabazz, would you please come forward and take the witness stand? MS. BLUESTINE: Your Honor, before we

46 I J -- O O co J O lll a w IJ - 7,1 0 et to Mr. Shabazz, if I may? THE COURT: Yes. MS. BLUESTINE: Morrissa Bluestine -- THE COURT: Yes. MS. BLUESTINE: -- on behalf of Mr. ollins, B- L- U- E- S- S- T- I -N -E. If you recall, Your Honor, we were here before you in June and you had said that we could take an opportunity to put things on the record -- THE COURT: Okay. MS. BLUESTINE: -- that we did not get a ÍJ Ó 'D CO J 0 VI w LA Á to in June. THE COURT: Yes. MS. BLUESTINE: So the first thing, Your Honor, is to reflect what happened on that date is what we were seeking to do is simply put on the record that indeed the Commonwealth and counsel for Mr. Rollins have stipulated to what Mr. Shabazz would testify. That stipulation has been filed with the Court. The Court has not signed it. Mr. Shabazz was in fact in court on June 27 and we would have questioned him then, had the Court allowed, but the Court continued. That we had also wanted to put on the record that

47 we had filed a motion for resolution, which I LA a w Iv 1J IJ IJ U a IJ IJ w N -- O D 00 IQ -- O 1/4O 00 I ON believe the Court has a copy of. If not, I did bring an extra. That filed on June 17 and we were seeking on -- ruling on the motion for resolution. However, the Court declared the case continued, dismissed counsel, and asked the sheriffs to escort us from the courtroom. At that point, I would just ask if the Commonwealth has anything to add in terms of what occurred on June 27. MR. GILSON: I wasn't here. MR. RITTERMAN: Oh, I believe Your Honor has listed today for -- to hear Mr. Shabazz's testimony and listed 9/26 to hear from Ms. Nixon and Miss -- and -- THE COURT: Detective Jim Rego. MR. RITTERMAN: -- and Detective Rego. MS. BLUESTINE: Right. MR. RITTERMAN: Correct, so that's also what had occurred. THE COURT: Okay. MS. BLUESTINE: Thank you. And I have been in contact with Detective Rego. He is available today. He would be available tomorrow. There was no need to

48 - O D Oo J VI a W IJ -- O IJ continue it up to September. They were other dates when at least for the witnesses availability that they would -- THE COURT: All right. MS. BLUESTINE: -- have been available earlier. THE COURT: These are dates that I had given out according to the Court's calendar. Mister -- Detective Rego and Ms. Nixon will be here on Monday, September 26. What I'd like to add, to my recollection, the date when Mr. Shabazz was here was a status date and a status date only. I had always given the date of 9/29 [sic] for Mr. Shabazz to give his testimony. I wanted to know if the Commonwealth or Defense would assist me in finding Mr. Shabazz and Ms. Nixon and Detective Rego. And that was purely a status date. You did insist on having a hearing. That was not -- you could not -- I felt the Court had other business to deal with and I did not allow the Ú.P W tj t case to go on because it was not a hearing date; it was -- MS. BLUESTINE: Right. THE COURT: -- a status date.

49 VI A O 0 00 w N IJ N O \ D 00 I ON And then when the -- you were blocking the flow of traffic, the flow of the Court, I asked the sheriffs to escort you out. MS. BLUESTINE: And -- THE COURT: And that is it correctly and that's what happened. MS. BLUESTINE: And I appreciate, Your Honor, but of -- THE COURT: And I'm -- I -- MS. BLUESTINE: -- course Mr. Rollins has a right to put on the record and create a record -- THE COURT: Sure. MS. BLUESTINE: -- of what's occurring in the courtroom, even it's just a status listing, and we were prohibited from doing that, which is why I'm trying to just correct that right now. THE COURT: Okay. Well -- MS. BLUESTINE: The second issue, Your 9 Honor, is that with or without Mr. Shabazz's iñ? w Íú testimony, both Mr. Rollin's counsel and the counsel for the Commonwealth agree that Mr. Rollins has met the burden of proof in showing

50 O 0 CO J O th A W IJ -- O 0 00 J ON tn A W IJ -- ineffectiveness of counsel. We have showed that the counsel failed to investigate the witnesses, failed to present available witnesses whose testimony would have been corroborated by objective evidence, by video, receipts and phone records. That those claims have merit. That counsel lacked a reasonable basis for his failures to investigate and present the witnesses and that Mr. Rollins was prejudiced by those failures. We have rested our case, as you've said. We have agreed with the Commonwealth -- excuse me -- the Commonwealth agrees Mr. Rollins is entitled as a matter of law to vacation of conviction and sentence and restoration to his pretrial bail. I would just ask if the Commonwealth agrees with that. MR. RITTERMAN: Do you agree with that? MR. GILSON: Is that what Robin said the last time we were here? I( IJ MR. RITTERMAN: Uh, yeah. i a W 1.) VINJ MR. GILSON: Okay. Your Honor, I believe that Assistant DA Robin Godfrey was present at the previous listing and she did in fact, on behalf of the Office,

51 VNi? 11.N N O D 00 J ON Vt a W IJ -- O 1/40 00 J ON V) a W N -- agree with that statement. THE COURT: I'm not sure, Mr. Gilson. You may -- better double check. Now, I know Robin Godfrey. She does a lot of my PCRAs. Some -- because I would be looking for you guys. I wouldn't -- because I didn't know Robin Godfrey had anything to do with it, but I don't remember Robin being in here. I mean, maybe I'm confusing her on another case, another PCRA. MR. RITTERMAN: She was here wasn't she? MS. BLUESTINE: April. MR. RITTERMAN: She was here -- not here at the last listing. She was at one before that, I believe. MR. WISEMAN: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Well, we were here in June? MR. RITTERMAN: Right. MR. GILSON: Right. MR. RITTERMAN: She was not here at the June listing. MR. GILSON: I believe she may have been here in April, Your Honor. I know at one of the listings she was here -- 11

52 in 1 O 0 00 OA LA a w IJ -- O 0 o0 tn Ja W N - THE COURT: Okay. MS. GILSON: -- and when she came back to court, I was informed that the position that she stated to Your Honor -- and I don't know if this was on the record or not on the record -- THE COURT: All right. MR. GILSON: -- was that we don't oppose the petition. We don't oppose the requested relief. And I believe she may have even said that she agreed that the relief should be granted, but I was not here for that, so I'm only repeating -- MS. BLUESTINE: That's correct. MR. GILSON: -- what I was told. MS. BLUESTINE: And, Your Honor, just - - she was present on April 29 when we had that discussion at the sidebar, if you recall. THE COURT: Okay. MS. BLUESTINE: But, it was not put on the record. And I just wanted to make sure the Commonwealth's position is on the record. DIGITIAL TECHNICIAN: Mr. Gilson, what's your first name, please. MR. GILSON: Sure. It's Mark, M- A -R -K, Gilson, G- I- L -S -O- 12

53 N. 13 DIGITAL TECHNICIAN: Thank you. MS. BLUESTINE: The next order of business, Your Honor, is we do have an J O VO 00 J ON ln O D 0o -.4 ON A W outstanding motion for resolution. I brought copies for the Court, if you didn't have them. It was filed on June 17. Again, this is stating that Mr. Rollins has met his burden of proof on the stand of ineffectiveness of counsel. The Commonwealth agrees Mr. Rollins is entitled to relief and we're simply asking that the Court rule on the petition. I have a proposed order for the Court's -- nope, that's a different one - - just to rule on the petition as it stands with the evidence both sides having rested. THE COURT: Well, we have a witness here. All of the evidence has not been taken. All of the evidence has not been heard as far as the Court is concerned. And I would be remiss t make a decision when I have not heard all of the 0 1,-) evidence. w Ñ MS. BLUESTINE: I understand. Just our position, Your Honor, is we INJ have presented all of the evidence we think CM relevant --

54 THE COURT: Okay. 14.A W 14 MS. BLUESTINE: -- and the Commonwealth has chosen to present none. THE COURT: And as a -- A a w I.N./ O O 00 ON (A CO J ON LA LtJ MS. BLUESTINE: Both sides do agree that relief is appropriate. THE COURT: And as a judge, I decide whether all the evidence has been presented and so that the case is complete in totality and the defendant is not mistreated or the victims are not mistreated in the case. So that I will rule, formally. We'll start with this witness because it's been a long day for all of you. You've been here and I guess you guys came -- we now know -- pretty much understand the Graterford bus is going to get in here around 10:30ish. So we can kind of agree the next date that I have 9/26, we can start to gather around -- I still say 10:15. We may be early; we may be late. Ms. Nixon has a new job. She's left the DA's Office. You'll have Detective Jim -- Jim Rego's left the Police Department, now working at Temple University, so it's not like they're City employees. You know, we can just have them here. I'm sure Ms. Nixon

55 or Detective Rego's got to get in and get out. 15 You know what I mean, so -- MR. RITTERMAN: Yeah. THE COURT: -- I just keep that in mind so we can do that. Ó O 00 J a Vl a W N O 0 oo 1 O tj W Ñ Okay. MR. RITTERMAN: Okay. THE COURT: All right. MS. BLUESTINE: And, Your Honor, just again, so we can make the record clear. We do object to the -- such a long continuance date. Mr. Rollins has not been in prison since the agreement with the Commonwealth since April 29. Every day is obviously an extension beyond what is -- what we believe is appropriate for him. And Detective Rego is available at any time to come to court. It doesn't have to be September 29. He can come tomorrow or any day. THE COURT: It has to be around the Court's schedule. I just can't -- MS. BLUESTINE: I appreciate that, Your Honor. I'm just saying -- THE COURT: -- change my schedule. IN) You know, I mean, I'd never get vi anything done, but I understand. I hear you.

56 Okay. 16 All right. MS. BLUESTINE: Your Honor, then I may have -- MR. RITTERMAN: Why are we doing the LA Á w J - Ó 1/40 OG VI A w O VD 00 J Q stipulation, if he's testifying? MR. GILSON: I think they just want to ake a record. MR. RITTERMAN: Okay. Okay. MS. BLUESTINE: Your Honor, may I just have this mark -u-ment -- document, pardon me, marked as Exhibit D THE COURT: Yes. MS. BLUESTINE: -- and shown to Mr. Shabazz? THE COURT: Well -- M S. BLUESTINE: That's all I needed to put on the r ecord, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. MS. BLUESTINE: We do object to the witness being c all, but we will obviously proceed with the Court. THE COURT: All right. So then at your time of cross - examination, you'll be able to mark your exhibit

57 and show it to Mr. Shabazz, right? 17 r+ w IJ MS. BLUESTINE: That's fine. I'm not quite -- THE COURT: Okay. IJ IJ IJ IJ Iv IJ V,.p tel 00 O 00 V O, ln N C (D r) o N C H w rt Even -- about how to -- MS. BLUESTINE: THE COURT: y cross -examination. MS. BLUESTINE: THE COURT: MS. BLUESTINE: ants to proceed. your last name. A-Z-Z. THE COURT: 3 7J I'm at a lost, frankly, -- if you -- you may not -- proceed. I understand. Okay. So it's however the Mr. Shabazz, state your name. MR. SHABAZZ: Spell Kareem Shabazz, S- H -A -B-

58 Ú a W Ñ I O 1/40 00 V la A W IJ `- O 1/40 CO J T LA A W IJ -- THE COURT: And how long have you done that? MR. SHABAZZ: Almost 35 years. THE COURT: And when you say you're an investigator, what are some of the tasks you do, you perform? MR. SHABAZZ: My assignment is usually based on the instructions of the attorney -- is to locate witnesses, other information regarding cases, kind of get the discovery for things that are -- will help the defendant. THE COURT: All right. Now, you've been in this room. You were here in June for a -- I'll call it a status to see what your availability was. MR. SHABAZZ: I was. THE COURT: At that point, I know by now you may have known, you heard me call the case today, you've been in here all morning long; I said it was Commonwealth versus Donte Rollins. MR. SHABAZZ: Yes. THE COURT: Is that correct? MR. SHABAZZ: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And did there come a time where you worked with a Mister -- well, do you is

59 -- O 1/40 00 J OA LA A W N A know a Mr. Nino Tinari, an attorney at law? MR. SHABAZZ: Absolutely, yes, sir. THE COURT: Have you ever worked for him? MR. SHABAZZ: Over 30 years. THE COURT: Did there ever come a time when he asked you to perform investigatory work in the case involving Commonwealth versus Donte Rollins? MR. SHABAZZ: I do not remember, Your Honor, about that -- about the case. 19 THE COURT: MR. SHABAZZ: Okay. I worked a lot of cases 41. for Mr. Tinari, mostly murder cases. IJ N N IJ N IJ tn A w N -- O 0 Co J OA LA Honestly, Your Honor, I'm not familiar with doing work in this case. THE COURT: Okay. So -- and your testimony today is you have no recollection of investigating, performing any work on Commonwealth versus Donte Rollins. And to refresh you a little bit, just -- it was an alibi defense and his mother had given certain names to Mr. Tinari and Mr. Tinari's Office. MR. SHABAZZ: I remember his mother, Your Honor. I remember the face. I remember --

60 I remember the Donte Rollins, but I'm not 20 w IJ familiar with any -- doing any work regarding Mr. Rollins. THE COURT: Okay. IJ NJ in A W Ñ N O MO 00 U a W IQ -- O co J O\ tn MR. SHABAZZ: It could -- it could have been something, Your Honor, as simple as serving subpoenas. THE COURT: Okay. MR. SHABAZZ: I just don't recall. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Okay. Any questions? MS. BLUESTINE: Just briefly, Your Honor. I 1 t 1 I 1 BY MS. BLUESTINE: Q. Mr. Shabazz, I can represent to you that there are no documents in Mr. Tinari's file that name you, that have any memoranda that you prepared, any receipts for payments made or anything of that nature. If you had any documents, would you have retained them? A. I would have turned them over to Mr. Tinari immediately.

61 Q. Okay.?1 00 J ON ln.p W N A. I was an in -house investigator, which required me to give him everything I did including -- Q. So the fact that there are no -- A. -- subpoenas. Q. -- I'm sorry -- please continue. A. I'm sorry. It would have required me turning over any information, any names, any information that I gathered, I would have turned over directly to Mr. Tinari. If I had made any notations of memories, they would have immediately been turned over to him. Q. So is it fair to say that the fact that there are no documents from you, to you, or have even mentioning you reflects that you did no work 1/4O 00 J 1/4O in.p W N 1,4 INJ O on this case? A. It does not necessarily mean that there's no documents -- that I didn't do anything. don't recall. I could have done something as simple as serving subpoenas or locating witnesses. That didn't require me filling out a report. I'm sorry. I just don't -- Q. If there are no subpoenas in the file -- A. No, then I didn't do them. I

62 A V..) 1.> Okay. Because I would have given copies both to Mr. Tinari that he probably provided to the Commonwealth and the Court as well. 1.0 VNi A Y o W N IJ O D co J O W N O 1/40 00 la Q. And is it fair to say that the facts of this particular case, the tragedy involvement of a child that would have stuck with you if you had done that? A. I would think that would have stuck out in my mind. Q. Thank you, sir. THE COURT: And it's your recollection day you don't remember talking to any just having any verbal conversations libi witnesses? MR. SHABAZZ: Your Honor, I do not. THE COURT: Okay. Commonwealth.

63 1 CROSS -EXAMINATION BY MR. RITTERMAN: 4 Q. Have you any discussion -- well, first of all, 5 good afternoon -- good morning. Good morning, sir. 6 Good morning, Mr. Shabazz. 7 A. Good morning. 8 Q. My name is ADA, Samuel Ritterman. 9 A. I -- yes, sir. 10 Q. Did -- have you had any discussions with Mr. 11 Tinari within the last year about this case? 12 A. I have, you know, because it came up. You 13 know, I was summons to the court. I didn't have 14 anything in mind about the information that indicated 15 that I did anything and I wanted to make sure and I 16 certainly checked with Mr. Tinari. And he couldn't 17 locate anything that I had actually turned over to 18 him. 19 Q. Did Mr. Tinari attempt to refresh your 20 recollection of any work you may have done? 21 A. We talked about the case, you know, a little, 22 but I still couldn't come up -- if anything he 23 couldn't remember anything actually that I had done. 24 Q. Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Thank 25 you.

64 1J tj N N 1J N ^ 00 W O 00 J ON A W 1J THE COURT: Okay. All right. Okay. Then you're excused, Mr. Shabazz. Okay. We will do a writ for Mr. Rollins. First load -- Monday, 9/26. Expect the bus to be here at 11:30, but sometimes they come early. Sometimes they come late. Again, I caution you that Ms. Nixon is with a new law firm, new job. Rego, is with Temple University, new job, so I encourage everyone to be here promptly. Let's get them out because they're doing us a service. We're not paying for them to come. We've not -- and I didn't even serve a subpoena on him. You guys -- Commonwealth will contact Ms. Nixon, right? MR. GILSON: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So they're doing this out of the goodness of their heart to be here. So -- and she -- MS. BLUESTINE: Your Honor -- THE COURT: -- contact probably Rego. So please try to be here on time. MS. BLUESTINE: Your Honor, we -- may we -- we do object to such a long, a lengthy

65 e. 25 THE COURT: Yes. MS. BLUESTINE: The Court has known since April N tj IJ N ly IQ Vi a w IJ O O oo v)? W IN) -- O O 00 J ON ln THE COURT: Yes. MS. BLUESTINE: -- that both sides agree. THE COURT: Yes. MS. BLUESTINE: We feel there's no need to continue it for this long, first. THE COURT: Yes. MS. BLUESTINE: For second, we object to a continuance for any purpose. All of the ro z itnesses germane to the ineffectiveness of counsel have been called. Detective Rego and the rosecutor really have nothing to say -- THE COURT: Okay. MS. BLUESTINE: -- over whether or not Mr. Tinari -- THE COURT: Okay. MS. BLUESTINE: -- did or did not comport himself in a way that meets the Constitutional requirements as both counsel -- all counsel agree he did not. So we object to any further continuances. We object to any

66 J ON N.P W N further witnesses being called. THE COURT: Objection overruled. Okay. MS. BLUESTINE: Your Honor, finally, we have -- also filed with the Court a motion to correct the record. I don't know if you had the chance to review that, Your Honor. That was filed on July 6. I do have additional copies. Again, Your Honor is well aware we were in court on April 29. The Court continued the matter to íni 40. L.-) IJ Ó 4D 00 A w IJ - June 27. THE COURT: For status -- MS. BLUESTINE: For status. THE COURT: -- to see what the availability of the witnesses -- MS. BLUESTINE: And I was present in court; that's correct. And then, it was continued again until today, August 29. THE COURT: That's correct. MS. BLUESTINE: However, the court docket, for one, Your Honor, can -- notes the June 27 continuance currently says it was a -- the Court granted a motion for continuance. No such motion was made --

67 IJ N J -- O.O CO 1 ON U a W IJ.-. O.O Co J ON tn a W N - IJ IJ IJ IJ LA a W 1?7 THE COURT: Okay. MS. BLUESTINE: -- but the Court, if you recall, actually continued the matter over party objections. THE COURT: The Court -- the Court made a motion. The Court made a motion to continue in June. MS. BLUESTINE: And then -- THE COURT: What? MS. BLUESTINE: Well, Your Honor, as CT' Q. t b rt he -- it currently reads it appears that one arty or the other made a motion. THE COURT: No, so it should be the Court made a motion because the Court used the June date as a status to find out the availability -- MS. BLUESTINE: Okay. THE COURT: -- of the witnesses. And -- and then as we said earlier, you anted to go forward, but that was not what that ate was set aside. usiness. The Court had other It was merely a status date to find out when Mr. Shabazz, when Ms. Nixon, when Detective Rego would be available. MS. BLUESTINE: I understand.

68 . THE COURT: So that is corrected to the 28 lli a w IN.) tj tj N v N N J. w N O O Oo O\ tn a W IJ -- O VD 00 J Oh point that I continued, the Court continued, not either of the parties. MS. BLUESTINE: That's good. THE COURT: I continued it. MS. BLUESTINE: That's fine. That's what we were asking for that correct. THE COURT: That correction is made. MS. BLUESTINE: That both April 29 and June 27 be corrected to reflect Court continues the matter -- THE COURT: Okay. MS. BLUESTINE: -- over party objections. THE COURT: Okay. MS. BLUESTINE: But in addition, Your Honor, there were two puzzling statues on the record for June 13 and June 20. I am, myself is being reflected as being in court. I was in Arizona during that time attending to a family emergency. We would just simply like those two dates, June 13 and June 6 -- June 20 to be deleted from the record. THE COURT: All right.

69 Well, why don't we look for the Notes? 29 v1 a w IJ 1/40 oo 1 0 tr a w N - O J T Why don't we pull the Notes from those dates? MS. BLUESTINE: We do have the Notes. THE COURT: On June 13 and June 20? MS. BLUESTINE: The case was not listed for that day, Your Honor, it was continued from April 29 to June 27. THE COURT: Okay. Now, you're saying that in the docket it says case listed June 13. Is that what I hear you saying? MS. BLUESTINE: Yes, sir. That's right. THE COURT: Okay, but you're saying no such date ever occurred. Donte Rollins was never listed on June 13? MS. BLUESTINE: That's correct. THE COURT: But in the docket entries, it says Donte Rollins 6/13. MS. BLUESTINE: And indeed, Your Honor, h-jp it says a motion for continuance was granted. Vi? w ÍJ THE COURT: On June MS. BLUESTINE: Yes. THE COURT: -- to June 20. MS. BLUESTINE: -- I it just says from

70 N IJ IJ IQ Iy IJ VI A W IJ O O 00-4 CT Vi A W 0 00 J ON.p W IJ -- June 13. su THE COURT: Okay. So -- MS. BLUESTINE: And then, the next listing is June 20. THE COURT: Now, June 20, that's the a a ate. That was a true status date, right? MS. BLUESTINE: I would just -- it was ctually June 27. THE COURT: Twenty- seventh. MS. BLUESTINE: Yes THE COURT: So you' re showing a June 13 and a June 20 and then we jum p to a June 27. MS. BLUESTINE: Yes. THE COURT: And of those dates, only June 7 is trul y a status date. MS. BLUESTINE: April 29 and June 27. TH E COURT: And June 13 was a nullity and June 20 is a nullity. S. BLUESTINE: Exactly. THE COURT: Nothing ever occurred on s? MS. BLUESTINE: That's correct. THE COURT: So the record will so reflect.

71 MS. BLUESTINE: Thank you, sir. 31 If need be, Your Honor, I do have an order -- THE COURT: Do you have anything on that? Well, hold on. IJ IJ IJ IJ tri a 1 N W N O 00 O 00 J 0A MS. BLUESTINE: I -- THE COURT: Well, hold on. Wait a minute. Let's clear -- while we're cleaning up now, Dorothy's saying she has something in her computer on June DIGITAL TECHNICIAN: Yes, Judge. THE COURT: -- and June 20. Let's share it. What do you have? DIGITAL TECHNICIAN: So on June 13 at 10:44 a.m. there was a status hearing. And the only thing happened was that Donte Rollins got a date for June 27. MS. BLUESTINE: But, Your Honor, it wasn't listed for that date. It must have been listed in error. DIGITAL TECHNICIAN: So you all may not have been here, but he may have been on the list and they just gave that date. THE COURT: Right. See, sometimes they'll put him on the

72 O D 00 J W IJ -+ O 1/ O V1.P W N -- N SL list -- MS. BLUESTINE: And that's fine. THE COURT: -- and that's a possibility that Court put it on the list. So we just dealt with it said the date was not that June 13. The date was June 27. MS. BLUESTINE: Then, Your Honor, if the docket could either reflect that either list it in error or delete it because I am shown as being present. I was not present. THE COURT: Right. MS. BLUESTINE: I was in Arizona, so I would appreciate it -- THE COURT: Yeah, we should have marked that -- well, see, we didn't mark that as L -I -E because we knew Mr. Rollins would be coming here sometime, so instead of using L -I -E, listed -inerror, we chose to give it a date of June 27. So we can reflect that you were not here on that day and nothing took place except we gave it -- we corrected the date and gave it a correct date a W IJ which was June 27. that, Your Honor. MS. BLUESTINE: We have no objection to THE COURT: Okay.

73 N IJ kj IJ IJ N l.n A W N O.O 00 ON Vi A la IJ.- O VD 00 V T to A W IJ - I MS. BLUESTINE: want it listed as -- and somebody -- continuance. THE COURT: MS. BLUESTINE: THE COURT: MS. BLUESTINE: ro a C N (D DIGITAL TECHNICIAN: don't see anything. THE COURT: Sure. Okay. All right. Nothing is here. Now, we don't have -- we -- it's not even coming up on the computer, right? DIGITAL TECHNICIAN: We just -- we don't -- it had been listed -- requested a THE COURT: Okay. All right. MS. BLUESTINE: for June 20, Your Honor. THE COURT: a June 20 in there, Dorothy? DIGITAL TECHNICIAN: THE COURT: Okay. And that would also be June 20, did -- you got I'm looking it up. We're pulling June 20th just to see. No. 33

74 w a U a W t D CO J ON Vi a W N 0 CO J O i a C 7 tq C O O L1 Ct tlf L!. st reflect -- reeing. MS. BLUESTINE: Right. So if you're -- if the record could THE COURT: So it would be L -I -E. MS. BLUESTINE: -- Your Honor's THE COURT: If anything was marked with is case -- Donte Rollins listed on June 13 and ne 20, it was L -I -E -- MS. BLUESTINE: Okay. THE COURT: -- placed on there without the knowledge of either -- MS. BLUESTINE: That's -- THE COURT: -- of the parties and the Court and we meant -- merely administratively handled it, but you were not here -- MS. BLUESTINE: That's fine. THE COURT: -- and it was never W ÍJ 1 supposed to be listed for a hearing -- MS. BLUESTINE: Then with -- THE COURT: -- only June 27. 1,-) MS. BLUESTINE: With Court's position

75 J O.O 00 J O'N V A W I IJ IJ la A W IJ `-' O D 00 W N.- then, I'll -- we'll get the Notes. I will follow -up with the Court Administration to get that fixed. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. MS. BLUESTINE: If they need anything further, I'm sure they'll let the Court know. THE COURT: Okay. MS. BLUESTINE: Your Honor, thank you. THE COURT: right. Take care. MS. BLUESTINE: Again, with note of our objection, that completes my business. May I be excused? THE COURT: That's the third one you've given me. MS. BLUESTINE: I'll go for four, if you want. THE COURT: Yeah, you're making sure it's on there. Okay. You're on there. You're covered. We'll see you -- everyone on 9/26..b

76 1 CERTIFICATION 36 3 I, Dorothy Sidberry, the assigned transcriber, do 4 hereby certify that the foregoing digitally- recorded 5 transcript of proceedings before the Court of Common 6 Pleas, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, August 7 29, 2016, is prepared to the best of my ability, in 8 full compliance with the current transcript format for 9 the judicial proceedings and is a true and accurate 10 transcription of the proceedings as recorded Dorothy Sidberry /

77 EXHIBIT D

78 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas County of Philadelphia 1st Judicial District Active Criminal Records Department Justice Juanita Kidd Stout Center for Criminal Justice 1301 Filbert Street Philadelphia, PA Docket No: RESCHEDULING NOTICE Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Donte Rollins C P-51-C R A/An PCRA was previously scheduled on Nov 06, 2015 at 8:00AM in The Justice Juanita Kidd Stout Center for Criminal Justice, 1301 Filbert Street Philadelphia, PA in the above -captioned case. It has been rescheduled to be held on /at: Date: November 20, 2015 Time: 8:00 am This proceeding will take place before Judge Rayford A. Means. To the Defendant: Location* The Justice Juanita Kidd Stout Center for Criminal Justice 1301 Filbert Street Philadelphia, PA You should discuss this matter promptly with your attorney. If you fail to appear as required or comply with the conditions of the hail bond, if any, then the bond shall remain in full force, and the full sum of the monetary condition of release may be forfeited and your release may be revoked. In addition, a warrant for your arrest may be issued. Bring this notice with you. If you fail to appear without cause at any proceeding for which your presence is required, including trial, your absence may be deemed a waiver of your right to be present, and the proceeding, including the trial, may be conducted in your absence. XI m Cl 0-0 CO 7JW.Z77] If you are disabled and require a reasonable accommodation to gain access to the Philadelphia County Court of ommon Pleas and its services, please contact the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas at the above ddress or telephone number. We are unable to provide transportation. ecipient: (Marissa Boyers Bluestine) rimary Participant Name and Address ollins, Donte 11 OPAL ST HILA., PA ollins, Donte I Graterford DOC# HM9990. O. Box 244 raterford, PA cc: Donte Rollins Marissa Boyers Bluestine J