Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

                  by Nichols](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10811165/com-v-morgan-j/#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 19, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Com. v. Morgan, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1227 EDA 2024
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Nichols

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (1.2K)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

                        by Nichols

J-S39022-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JULMEEN MORGAN :
:
Appellant : No. 1227 EDA 2024

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 27, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0000120-2016

BEFORE: STABILE, J., NICHOLS, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED MARCH 19, 2026

Appellant Julmeen Morgan appeals from the order denying his Post-

Conviction Relief Act1 (PCRA) petition without a hearing. On appeal, Appellant

claims that PCRA counsel was ineffective and requests a remand pursuant to

Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2021). After review, we

affirm.

This Court previously set forth the underlying facts of this case as

follows:

On October 6, 2015, Philadelphia Police Officers responded to the
2700 block of N. 8th Street in Philadelphia. There, they found
Shaheed Henderson (hereinafter referred to as Shaheed) [FN1]
slumped over in the driver’s seat of a gold Lexus sedan suffering
from a gunshot wound to the head. Victim Erick Ramirez was
found lying on the sidewalk next to the open passenger side door
of the vehicle. Ramirez was transported by police to Temple
University Hospital where he was pronounced dead. Shaheed was

---

1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S39022-25

pronounced dead at the scene. A subsequent autopsy revealed
Shaheed’s cause of death to be two gunshot wounds to the head
as well as a gunshot wound to the left hip. Ramirez’s cause of
death was a single gunshot wound to the head. Five .380 auto
fired cartridge cases (FCC’s) were recovered by police from the
scene. A forensic analysis of these FCC’s revealed that they had
all been fired from the same .380 caliber handgun. A similar
analysis of the bullet specimens recovered from Shaheed’s body,
bullet jacket and the bullet jacket fragment recovered from
Ramirez’s body determined that each of those pieces of ballistic
evidence had been fired from the same .380 caliber firearm.
[FN1]The trial court indicated that it referenced Shaheed
Henderson by his first name because three witnesses with
the surname Henderson testified at trial.

The evidence adduced at trial revealed the chain of events that
led to the murders had its genesis in an incident a week before
the killings in which Appellant knocked on the door of Shaheed’s
residence and was greeted by Shaheed’s mother, Emma
Henderson. Appellant indicated to Ms. Henderson that Shaheed
owed him $5.00 for using his cell phone or possessing his cell
phone. Ms. Henderson then gave Appellant $5.00 on her son’s
behalf. However, when she informed her son of the incident,
Shaheed stated that he did not owe Appellant $5.00. Shaheed
subsequently indicated to his sister, Naeemah Henderson, that he
felt the taking of $5.00 from his mother was disrespectful.

Two days before the shooting, Shaheed was seated in his vehicle
outside the Henderson residence following a family function. Upon
seeing Appellant walking up 8th Street with his girlfriend, Shaheed
exited the vehicle and approached Appellant. After an exchange
of words, Shaheed punched Appellant in the face knocking him to
the ground. He then continued striking Appellant until the two
were separated. During the altercation, Appellant’s girlfriend was
struck in the head and sustained a wound requiring six stitches.

Between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., on October 5, 2015, Shaheed’s
brother, Kareem Henderson (Kareem), and Erick Ramirez were
sitting on the steps of the Henderson residence when Appellant
rode by on his bike with his right hand in the pocket of his hoodie.
Appellant made a U-turn and then stopped in the middle of the
street in front of the two men and[,] while still holding his right
hand in his pocket, asked for Shaheed. When Kareem told
Appellant that Shaheed wasn’t there, Appellant responded that he

-2-
J-S39022-25

saw Shaheed’s car and that “[Shaheed] was going to pay for what
he did.” He then rode off on the bike.

At approximately 1:00 a.m. on October 6, 2015, Shaheed left the
Henderson residence to meet with Ramirez. The two then met
with an associate, Lionel Brown, and proceeded to Brown’s
residence in Shaheed’s Lexus to get wrapping papers to smoke
marijuana. While en route, Shaheed began discussing a problem
he had with Appellant. As the three men drove to Brown’s house,
they passed Appellant near the intersection of Cambria and
Franklin Streets. At that time, Brown observed that Appellant was
wearing a black hoodie and tan pants.

Upon their arrival at Brown’s residence, Brown exited the vehicle.
As he entered his residence, he observed Appellant approaching
Shaheed’s vehicle. Shaheed then drove off and Appellant watched
Shaheed’s vehicle as it drove away. Shaheed and Ramirez picked
Brown up again a short time later and they proceeded to 8th
Street and parked across the street from Shaheed’s house. A few
minutes later as the men were sitting in the vehicle, shots rang
out from outside the driver’s side. Brown then exited the vehicle.
As he did so, he observed Appellant, who was still wearing a black
hoodie and tan pants, on the driver’s side shooting. Brown then
fled through a nearby parking lot. Later in the morning of October
6, 2015, Brown approached detectives, indicated he had been
present at the shooting and identified Appellant as the shooter.
He was then brought to the homicide unit where he gave a signed
statement identifying Appellant as the shooter.

The shooting was also observed by eyewitness Mario Aguirre Ruiz.
Ruiz was in the front bedroom of his residence on 8th Street when
he heard gunshots. He looked out the window and observed the
shooter standing at the post between the driver’s side front and
rear of Shaheed’s vehicle. While the shooter was still on the
driver’s side, Ruiz observed a person flee from the vehicle. The
shooter then proceeded to the passenger side, grabbed the front
passenger by the hair as he exited the vehicle and shot him in the
head. When the shooter’s hoodie came down, Ruiz was able to
catch a glimpse of the shooter’s face. The shooter then fled
toward Somerset St. As he did so, he placed the firearm inside
the waistband of his pants. Ruiz was subsequently interviewed on
October 7, 2019 by homicide [detectives] relating his observations
[sic] and was shown a sequential photo array. When shown
Appellant’s photo, Ruiz indicated, “it's a possibility the male’s face
looks longer.”

-3-
J-S39022-25

In the early morning hours of October 6, 2015, Appellant arrived
at the home of his girlfriend, Daysha Gregory. Appellant told
Gregory he needed her to tell the police he had been with her all
night because he, “got into some shit.”

A subsequent forensic analysis of video recovered from the crime
scene showed an individual in a dark hoodie and tan pants fleeing
from the scene. No handgun could be seen in the video as the
individual fled.

Appellant was not licensed to carry a firearm at the time of the
killings.

Commonwealth v. Morgan, 2020 WL 3791674, at *1-2 (Pa. Super. filed

July 7, 2020) (citing Trial Ct. Op., 6/21/19, at 2-6) (unpublished mem.) (some

formatting altered).

Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of first-

degree murder, and one count each of possession of an instrument of crime

(PIC), firearms not to be carried without a license, and carrying a firearm on

the public streets of Philadelphia.2,3 Appellant was sentenced to consecutive

---

2 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(a), 907(a), 6106(a)(1), and 6108, respectively.

3 Appellant was convicted of charges at two docket numbers. At Docket
Number 120 of 2016, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder in
relation to the murder of Shaheed Henderson as well as the weapons charges.
See Morgan, 2020 WL 3791674, at *3. At Docket Number 121 of 2016,
Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder in relation to the murder of
Erick Ramirez. See id. On April 23, 2025, Appellant’s appeal of the case at
Docket Number 121 of 2016 was dismissed for failure to file a brief. See 2379
EDA 2024, Order, 4/23/25.

-4-
J-S39022-25

sentences of life without parole for each of his first-degree murder

convictions.4

On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence

on July 7, 2020. See id. at *1, *5. Appellant filed a petition for allowance of

appeal with our Supreme Court, which was denied on October 28, 2020. See

Commonwealth v. Morgan, 258 EAL 2020, 240 A.3d 881 (Pa. 2020).

Appellant filed a PCRA petition on December 29, 2021. The PCRA court

appointed counsel who filed a no merit letter pursuant to Commonwealth v.

Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) and Commonwealth v.

Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) on December 26, 2023. The PCRA court

issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to dismiss Appellant’s PCRA

petition without a hearing on February 8, 2024. On March 27, 2024, the PCRA

court dismissed Appellant’s PCRA petition and granted PCRA counsel’s motion

to withdraw.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. On May 7, 2024, the PCRA

court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement within twenty-

one days of the entry of the order. Appellant requested an extension to file

his Rule 1925(b) statement on June 7, 2024. The PCRA court granted

Appellant’s extension on June 26, 2024. Appellant did not file a Rule 1925(b)

---

4 The trial court also imposed sentences of two and a half to five years’
incarceration for PIC, two and a half to five years’ incarceration for carrying a
firearm on the public streets of Philadelphia, and three and a half to seven
years’ incarceration for carrying a firearm without a license. These sentences
were imposed to run concurrent to each other as well as to the sentences for
the homicide charges.

-5-
J-S39022-25

statement. The PCRA court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on August 30, 2024,

and addressed the issues Appellant raised in his PCRA petition.

Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

Whether this Court should remand in accordance with
Commonwealth v. Bradley, [261 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2021)?]

Appellant’s Brief at 4 (some formatting altered).

Before addressing the merits of Appellant’s claim, we must first consider

whether he properly preserved the issue for review. See Commonwealth v.

Edmondson, 718 A.2d 751, 752 n.7 (Pa. 1998) (explaining that appellate

courts may raise the issue of waiver sua sponte).

As this Court has previously stated:

Rule 1925(b) “is a crucial component of the appellate process
because it allows the trial court to identify and focus on those
issues the parties plan to raise on appeal.” Commonwealth v.
Bonnett, 239 A.3d 1096, 1106 (Pa. Super. 2020); see also
Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (issues cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal). “[A]ny issue not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will
be deemed waived for appellate review.” Bonnett, 239 A.3d at
1106 (citing Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d
306, 309 (1998)); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not
included in the Statement ... are waived.”). Although Appellant is
proceeding pro se, under Pennsylvania law, pro se defendants are
subject to the same rules of procedure as are represented
defendants. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 586 Pa. 553, 896
A.2d 523, 534 (2006).

Commonwealth v. Snyder, 316 A.3d 178, 181 (Pa. Super. 2024).

“[A] PCRA petitioner may, after a PCRA court denies relief, and after

obtaining new counsel or acting pro se, raise claims of PCRA counsel’s

ineffectiveness at the first opportunity to do so, even if on appeal.” See id.

-6-
J-S39022-25

at 182 (quoting Bradley, 261 A.3d at 401) (some formatting altered). Where

a PCRA court denies a PCRA petition, permits PCRA counsel to withdraw based

on their Turner/Finley letter, and orders the petitioner to file a pro se Rule

1925(b) statement, Appellant’s first opportunity to raise PCRA counsel’s

ineffective assistance is in the court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement. See

id. at 182. In this context, failure to include claims of PCRA counsel’s

ineffective assistance in a Rule 1925(b) statement will result in waiver of the

issue on appeal. See id. at 183.

Here, PCRA counsel filed a Turney/Finley letter and a motion to

withdraw. See Finley Letter, 12/26/23; Mot. to Withdraw, 12/26/23. The

PCRA court subsequently dismissed Appellant’s petition and granted PCRA

counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Trial Ct. Order, 3/28/24. At that point,

Appellant was pro se. See Commonwealth v. Gibson, 318 A.3d 927, 933

(Pa. Super. 2024) (stating that “once the [PCRA] court permits PCRA counsel

to withdraw after filing a Turner/Finley ‘no-merit’ letter, an appellant is no

longer entitled to the appointment of counsel on appeal”); see also Snyder,

316 A.3d at 182 (stating that, once “the PCRA court denied appellant’s petition

and his PCRA counsel was permitted to withdraw[,] Appellant[ was]

proceeding pro se” (some formatting altered)). The PCRA court then ordered

Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. See Trial Ct. Order, 5/7/24.5

---

5 The order included all the content required by Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3) and was

accompanied with a proof of service showing it was mailed by certified mail to
Appellant. See Trial Ct. Order, 5/7/24; see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3).

-7-
J-S39022-25

Appellant sought an extension to file his Rule 1925(b) statement on June 7,

2024, and the trial court granted Appellant an additional thirty days to file the

statement on June 26, 2024. See Request for Extension, 6/7/24; Trial Ct.

Order, 6/26/24. However, for unknown reasons, although Appellant was

ordered to file a Rule 1925(b) statement and granted an extension of time to

file such a statement, he failed to do so. Accordingly, Appellant’s claim of

ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel is waived. See Snyder, 316 A.3d at

1. For these reasons, no relief is due. 6

Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 3/19/2026

---

6 We note that Appellant also argues several claims of ineffective assistance

of trial counsel in his appellate brief. See Appellant’s Brief at 11-13. These
claims are also waived for failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. See
Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); Bonnett, 239 A.3d at 1106.

-8-