Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

                  by Ford Elliott](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10826348/com-v-morris-d/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Com. v. Morris, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 898 MDA 2024
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Ford Elliott

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (22.2K)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

                        by [Kate Ford Elliott](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8229/kate-ford-elliott/)

J-S45045-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
DANIEL DAVID MORRIS :
:
Appellant : No. 898 MDA 2024

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 29, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montour County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-47-CR-0000128-2016

BEFORE: STABILE, J., MURRAY, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED: MARCH 27, 2026

Daniel David Morris appeals from the order dismissing his first petition

filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-

1. Morris exclusively contends, through the lens of ineffective assistance

of counsel, that the PCRA court erred in finding that he did not notify his trial

counsel about a witness who would have allegedly provided evidence about

his mental health history, including his suicidal ideations, to defeat other

evidence showing his consciousness of guilt. We affirm.

By way of background, a jury found Morris guilty of rape by forcible

compulsion, statutory sexual assault, sexual assault, and indecent assault.1

---

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3121(a)(1), 3122.1(b), 3124.1, and 3126(a)(1), respectively.
J-S45045-25

The court sentenced him to an aggregate term of eleven to twenty-two years

of incarceration.

Although Morris does not contest any of the facts specifically

underpinning his convictions, we briefly note that he engaged in indecent

contact and vaginal intercourse with a then-thirteen-year-old victim under the

apparent ruse of “wrestling.” See Trial Court Opinion, 5/28/24, at 2. Morris

and the victim shared a basement and “had wrestled on many past occasions.”

Id. Nevertheless, the thrust of Morris’ defense at trial was that his “DNA was

not found the next day after a ‘rape kit’ examination was administered to the

[v]ictim despite the [v]ictim’s testimony that she had not showered the night

before and that [Morris] ejaculated inside her vagina and did not use a

condom.” Id. at 3.2

Trooper Bradley Rishel testified at Morris’ trial, the content of which

delved into Morris’ suicide attempt three days after the rape incident. Said

testimony was offered as evidence of consciousness of Morris’ guilt, given the

correspondingly-admitted suicide note given to his then-girlfriend. Ultimately,

the jury found Morris guilty of the above-mentioned offenses.

Morris did not file a direct appeal following sentencing. Nevertheless, he

filed a timely PCRA petition, which alleged, inter alia, that trial counsel “was

ineffective for failing to elicit that Morris’ suicide attempt had no relation to

---

2 However, as Morris highlights, the rape kit examination uncovered “the
presence of semen[, not attributable to him,] inside [the victim’s] vagina.”
Appellant’s Brief at 5.

-2-
J-S45045-25

this case[.]” PCRA Petition, 1/18/24, at 9. Germane to the present appeal,

Morris identified that Terry Sims3 “would have testified about Morris’ history

of suicide attempts” and was “familiar with Morris’ history of depression and

suicide attempts.” Id. ¶ 10. Ultimately, following a hearing in which his trial

counsel testified, the PCRA court denied Morris relief and dismissed his

petition.4

Morris presents a single issue for our review: “was the PCRA court’s

factual finding that he did not tell his trial counsel about a particular witness

supported by the record?” Appellant’s Brief at 4.

“Our standard of review for an order denying PCRA relief is whether the

record supports the PCRA court’s determination, and whether the PCRA court’s

determination is free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 31 A.3d

---

3 There is ambiguity in the record as to whether the proper spelling of this

person’s name is “Sims” or “Simms,” with the PCRA petition referring to this
person by the latter, but the trial court and Morris’ brief utilizing the former
version.

4 This Court, on June 23, 2025, permitted the attorney who filed Morris’
present brief, Todd M. Mosser, Esquire, to withdraw as counsel. Thereafter,
an attorney from the Montour County Public Defender’s Office was appointed
as Morris’ counsel. However, on September 30, 2025, this second attorney
filed a praecipe for withdrawal of appearance. His current counsel, Hank J.
Clarke, Esquire, entered his appearance on October 16, 2025. Although we,
on October 31, 2025, directed Attorney Clarke to notify this Court within thirty
days whether he would be relying on Attorney Mosser’s brief or whether that
brief should be stricken, allowing for the filing of a new brief, Attorney Clarke
did not respond. Therefore, in accordance with the order, “the appeal will
proceed with [Morris’] February 4, 2025 brief.” Order, 10/31/25. We note our
displeasure in the lack of communication from Attorney Clarke.

-3-
J-S45045-25

317, 319 (Pa. Super. 2011). “The PCRA court’s findings will not be disturbed

unless there is no support for the findings in the certified record.” Id.

Morris claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, which is

an enumerated basis rendering him eligible for relief under the PCRA. See 42

Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(ii). Accordingly, we start by noting that the standard

test for ineffective assistance of counsel is the same under both the United

States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. See Strickland v. Washington, 466

U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); Commonwealth v. Kimball, 724 A.2d 326, 330-

32 (Pa. 1999). The appellant must demonstrate: (1) his underlying claim is of

arguable merit; (2) the course of conduct pursued by counsel did not have

some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his interests; and (3) but for

counsel’s ineffectiveness, he was prejudiced such that there is a reasonable

probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different if

not for counsel’s action or inaction. See Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203

A.3d 1033, 1043 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). A failure to satisfy any

prong of the test for ineffectiveness requires rejection of the claim. See id. at

1044 (citation omitted). “[B]oilerplate allegations and bald assertions of no

reasonable basis and/or ensuing prejudice cannot satisfy a petitioner’s burden

to prove that counsel was ineffective.” Id. at 1044. (citation omitted).

Morris’ argument is limited to eight sentences and maintains that Sims

“was consistently contacted by [Morris] about his multiple past suicide

attempts[] or his desire to commit suicide” and that she also indicated she

“would testify for him at trial.” Appellant’s Brief at 9. In addition, he notes that

-4-
J-S45045-25

Sims picked him up “from the hospital after the suicide attempt presented at

trial.” Id. Accordingly, to Morris, it was unreasonable for the court to infer that

he, a person “who testified at length about his mental and physical ailments,

would not have informed trial counsel of [] Sims, particularly if counsel [was]

discussing [his] mental health history with him and at least one other

witness.” Id. at 10.

At the PCRA hearing, trial counsel unequivocally testified that he was

never told about Terry Sims. See N.T. PCRA Hearing, 4/8/24, at 48. Likewise,

Sims testified that she had never spoken to trial counsel. See id. at 72.

Therefore, distilled down, this contention as to trial counsel’s awareness of a

potential source of exculpatory testimony becomes nothing more than a

credibility determination. The trial court “accepted as credible” trial counsel’s

testimony and “rejected as incredible” Morris’ testimony. See Trial Court

Opinion, 5/28/24, at 9.

As, on PCRA review, we must view the evidence in the record in the light

most favorable to the prevailing party and, in addition, we are obligated to

defer to the PCRA court’s factual findings and credibility determinations that

are supported by the record, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Reyes-

Rodriguez, 111 A.3d 775, 779 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc), there can be no

attack on counsel’s “course of conduct” when he was found to have been

wholly unaware of the existence of Sims and with no reason to know of his

existence. Therefore, because Morris failed to establish at least one of the

three prongs necessary for a demonstration of ineffective assistance of

-5-
J-S45045-25

counsel, we find that the PCRA court did not err by denying Morris relief and

affirm the order dismissing his PCRA petition. See Commonwealth v.

Bryant, 855 A.2d 726, 746 (Pa. 2004) (to prevail on a claim that trial counsel

was ineffective for failing to present a witness, a PCRA petitioner must

demonstrate, inter alia, that counsel was either aware of or should have been

aware of the witness’ existence).

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 03/27/2026

-6-