On Tuesday, August 18, 2022, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania denied Ismael Myrick’s appeal regarding the order that denied his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). The case is styled as ‘Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Myrick’ with case number #J-S17008-22.
On November 5, 2015, at the conclusion of his jury trial, Myrick was convicted of aggravated assault, possessing an instrument of crime, reckless endangerment, carrying a firearm without a license, and carrying a firearm on a public street. After dismissing the jury and conducting a bifurcated trial, the court further convicted the Appellant of carrying a firearm as a prohibited person. On January 7, 2016, after considering all mitigating factors, Myrick was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of seventeen to forty-three years.
The order reads:
“On direct appeal, during which Appellant continued to be represented by trial counsel, Appellant challenged the weight of the evidence and the discretionary aspects of his sentence in addition to the following issue: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying [Appellant’s] motions for recusal and mistrial, where the trial court demonstrated manifest bias by cross-examining witnesses in a manner clearly intended to undermine testimony proffered by those witnesses which were favorable for [Appellant] and thereby bolster the Commonwealth’s case, and the trial court repeatedly.”
The order goes on:
“[Appellant] contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying [Appellant]’s motion for recusal and mistrial. [Appellant] first asserts that the trial court exhibited bias when cross-examining witnesses.”
The order also reads:
“Appellant first contends that the PCRA court erred in denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object, move for recusal, request a curative instruction, or seek a mistrial based upon the trial court’s purported hostility toward defense counsel, or failed to preserve the issues for appeal.”
The order additionally notes:
“We are unpersuaded. First, the fact that the PCRA court was required to rule upon his own objectivity is of no moment, as “recusal motions are routinely addressed in the first instance by the judge whose recusal is sought.” Commonwealth v. Dip, 221 A.3d 201, 208 (Pa.Super. 2019). Furthermore, we have already held that the certified record evinces no actual or apparent bias or partiality against the Appellant or the merits of his legal arguments, but rather a lack of tolerance for trial counsel’s failure to follow the court’s instructions. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the PCRA court erred or abused its discretion in failing to recuse itself.
For the reasons stated above, the Appellant has failed to establish that the PCRA court erred and that relief is due. We, therefore, affirm the order that denied his PCRA petition.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
