Com. v. Adames, J.
2006 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 24, 2017Background
- In 2000 Adames and co-defendants in a white van shot at a vehicle; eyewitnesses and physical evidence (bullet slug, shell casing, statements) tied Appellant to the shooting.
- Appellant was tried jointly with co-defendants, convicted in 2005 of aggravated assault, related firearms and weapons offenses, and sentenced to 13–28 years; direct appeal and PA Supreme Court review were denied.
- Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition (first) in 2008, later proceeded pro se after a Grazier hearing, and amended his petition in 2014.
- At a 2015 PCRA evidentiary hearing Adames rested on his amended petition and presented no live evidence; the PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition in October 2015.
- On appeal Adames argued Pennsylvania lost jurisdiction due to an erroneous transfer to federal custody and advanced a dozen ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims (e.g., failure to call witnesses, failure to retain experts, waiver of right to testify, failure to move on Rule 600, double jeopardy, sufficiency/weight challenges).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction after transfer to federal custody | Adames: PA courts lost jurisdiction when he was mistakenly transferred to federal custody; sentence unenforceable | Commonwealth/PCRA court: transfer unrelated to whether sentence began; claim more properly raised on other Berks dockets or in Commonwealth Court for DOC calculation | Court: claim rejected — transfer did not divest jurisdiction here; DOC computation issues are for Commonwealth Court, not PCRA |
| Failure to call/alibi and other witnesses | Adames: trial counsel ineffective for not calling named defense witnesses | Commonwealth: Adames presented no proffer or evidence fulfilling Thomas factors at PCRA hearing | Court: ineffectiveness claims fail for lack of evidence; petitioner did not satisfy witness-existence/availability/willingness/prejudice requirements |
| Failure to retain experts (DNA, ballistics, misidentification) | Adames: counsel ineffective for not hiring experts who would have undermined Commonwealth evidence | Commonwealth: bare assertions without evidentiary support; no proof of counsel’s lack of reasonable strategy or resulting prejudice | Court: denied — claims not proven at hearing; counsel presumed effective absent proof |
| Other trial errors (Rule 600/speedy trial, confrontation, investigation, waiver of right to testify, double jeopardy, motions) | Adames: counsel omitted numerous pretrial and trial protections and motions, prejudicing outcome | Commonwealth: claims are conclusory, unsupported at hearing; some remedies unavailable via PCRA | Court: denied — petitioner failed to meet tripartite ineffective-assistance test and did not show prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009) (PCRA ineffective-assistance three-prong test and prejudice standard)
- Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 661 A.2d 352 (Pa. 1995) (court may dispose on prejudice prong alone)
- Commonwealth v. Loner, 836 A.2d 125 (Pa. Super. 2003) (counsel not ineffective for failing to pursue meritless claims)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 596 A.2d 885 (Pa. Super. 1991) (petitioner's burden to produce counsel at evidentiary hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 44 A.3d 12 (Pa. 2012) (elements required to prove counsel ineffective for failing to call a witness)
- Commonwealth v. Pettus, 424 A.2d 1332 (Pa. 1981) (ineffective-assistance claims must allege sufficient facts)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (federal speedy-trial balancing test)
- Commonwealth v. Heredia, 97 A.3d 392 (Pa. Super. 2014) (PCRA is not proper method to challenge DOC sentence computation)
- Commonwealth v. Volk, 138 A.3d 659 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for denial of PCRA petition)
- Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA findings will not be disturbed if supported by record)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (standards for waiver of counsel and proceeding pro se)