Com. v. Adams, N.
3213 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 9, 2017Background
- On July 27, 2012, a drug transaction near Michael Comito’s apartment ended with the shooting death of Jeter; surveillance placed Adams near the scene that evening. Adams was arrested in October 2012 and, after a four-day jury trial, was convicted of third-degree murder and sentenced to 20–40 years.
- Adams’s direct appeal was denied by the Superior Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- Adams filed a pro se PCRA petition raising ineffective-assistance and after-discovered-evidence (including alleged recantation) claims; counsel was appointed and a hearing was held.
- The PCRA court denied relief on August 29, 2016; Adams appealed to the Superior Court. The Superior Court affirmed.
- The court held that the after-discovered-evidence and recantation claims were waived because the evidence was discovered while the direct appeal was pending and was not raised promptly on direct appeal.
- The court rejected Adams’s ineffective-assistance claim (failure to call an alleged alibi witness, Kahmir De’Lapara): the PCRA court credited trial counsel’s testimony that he never knew of De’Lapara pretrial, so the claim lacked arguable merit; Adams also failed to brief the reasonable-basis and prejudice prongs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Adams) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA should grant new trial based on after-discovered evidence | Letter (May 2014) and a recantation discovered in May 2014 constitute after-discovered evidence warranting a new trial | Evidence was discovered during the direct appeal and was not raised promptly on direct appeal, so it is waived under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b) and Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(C) | Waived; PCRA relief denied |
| Whether recantation of key witness (Comito) merits PCRA relief | Recantation is substantive after-discovered evidence that undermines conviction | Same waiver argument; recantation was discovered during direct appeal and not timely raised | Waived; PCRA relief denied |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Kahmir De’Lapara as an alibi witness | Counsel knew of De’Lapara or should have called him; failure deprived Adams of effective assistance | PCRA court found counsel credible that he was unaware of De’Lapara pretrial; De’Lapara’s testimony was not credible; Adams failed to show arguable merit, reasonable basis, or prejudice | Claim denied — no arguable merit; alternatively, Adams failed to brief all Pierce prongs |
| Whether appellate defects (vague statement of questions) warranted dismissal | N/A (Adams filed broad Rule 2116 statement) | Although appellate statement was overbroad, court declined to find waiver because issues were discernible from brief | No dismissal for defective statement; merits considered where possible |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. 2014) (standard for reviewing PCRA denial)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 809 A.2d 325 (Pa. 2002) (PCRA waiver for issues that could have been raised on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Reyes-Rodriguez, 111 A.3d 775 (Pa. Super. 2015) (three-part test for counsel ineffectiveness under Pierce)
- Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210 (Pa. Super. 2014) (PCRA court credibility findings are binding when supported by record)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (framework for ineffective-assistance claims)