Com. v. Agnew, H., 299 A.3d 1001

Henry Agnew was convicted after a 2016 jury trial of multiple drug-trafficking offenses and sentenced to an aggregate 33–66 months. Trial counsel was Robert Donaldson.
Donaldson filed a timely notice of appeal but failed to file an appellate brief; the Superior Court dismissed the appeal for that reason.
Agnew filed a timely PCRA petition in 2018; the PCRA court granted relief in 2019 and reinstated direct-appeal rights nunc pro tunc; appellate counsel Douglas Keating later filed an untimely notice and that appeal was quashed, prompting another reinstatement order.
During postconviction proceedings Agnew alleged ineffective assistance by prior counsel for failing to preserve a Confrontation Clause challenge to admission of text messages from a deceased confidential informant (CI), and alleged PCRA counsel failed to amend the Rule 1925(b) statement to include that issue.
The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing and on November 18, 2022 reinstated Agnew’s direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc limited to the Confrontation Clause/text-message issue; the Commonwealth appealed.
The Superior Court reversed, holding counsel’s failures did not warrant presumptive prejudice, the texts were admitted to explain police conduct (not for their truth), so no Confrontation Clause violation and Agnew failed to show actual prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PCRA court erred by granting nunc pro tunc direct appeal because prior counsel were not ineffective	Commonwealth: prior counsel were not ineffective; Agnew cannot show a reasonable probability of different outcome on appeal	Agnew: prior counsel failed to preserve Confrontation Clause claim about CI texts; PCRA counsel failed to amend 1925(b), depriving him of appellate review	Reversed PCRA relief; no ineffective assistance — texts were admitted for non‑truth purpose so no Confrontation Clause violation; Agnew lacked actual prejudice
Whether PCRA court erred in granting relief under Commonwealth v. Holmes where Holmes conditions not met and relief not requested	Commonwealth: Holmes relief was inappropriate and not sought by Agnew	Agnew: (sought reinstatement limited to confrontation issue)	Not reached — Superior Court reversed on other grounds

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes federal ineffective-assistance standard)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (defines testimonial statements for Confrontation Clause purposes)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 289 A.3d 959 (Pa. 2023) (PCRA requires showing arguable merit, lack of reasonable basis, and prejudice measured by reasonable probability of different result)
Commonwealth v. Dargan, 897 A.2d 496 (Pa. Super. 2006) (statements admitted to explain officers’ course of conduct are not barred by Confrontation Clause)
Commonwealth v. Reed, 971 A.2d 1216 (Pa. 2009) (presumed prejudice is limited to complete denial of appellate review circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Reaves, 923 A.2d 1119 (Pa. 2007) (distinguishes losses that entirely foreclose appellate review from those that merely narrow it)