Com. v. Alvarado, O.
963 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 18, 2016Background
- October 21, 2008: Appellant Oscar Alvarado robbed a drug dealer in Fairhill Park, displayed a gun, and took Xanax; shortly after he shot and fatally wounded Marta Martinez and fired additional shots.
- Appellant and co-defendant Cynthia Alvarado were arrested the same day; appellant was captured after attempting to hide.
- July 15, 2010: Jury convicted appellant of second-degree murder, robbery, and carrying a firearm without a license; appellant pled guilty to a firearms-possession charge; sentenced to mandatory life plus concurrent and consecutive terms on other counts.
- Appellate review affirmed conviction; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur.
- February 28, 2013: Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition; counsel filed a Finley/Turner no‑merit letter; PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition on March 13, 2015.
- Appellant appealed pro se, raising ineffective-assistance claims concerning severance/Bruton issues, failure to interview/call witnesses, and alleged ineffectiveness of PCRA counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial should have been severed from co-defendant | Trial counsel were ineffective for not securing severance | Trial counsel moved to sever repeatedly; trial court denied | Claim lacks arguable merit — counsel did move for severance |
| Admission of co-defendant’s redacted statements (Bruton) and prosecutor’s opening undoing redaction | Redaction violated Bruton; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Claim was not preserved/waived in the PCRA pleadings and Rule 907 response | Waived/lacked preservation; not available on PCRA review |
| Failure to interview/call witnesses (Marvin Kennedy, Mark Vandegrift) | Counsel failed to investigate and call alibi/eyewitnesses | Trial court conducted colloquy showing appellant knowingly waived calling witnesses | Lacks arguable merit — appellant knowingly waived calling witnesses |
| Ineffectiveness of PCRA counsel for filing no‑merit letter | PCRA counsel should have pursued the above claims | Appellant did not raise PCRA-counsel ineffectiveness in response to Rule 907; claims waived | Waived for failure to raise in Rule 907 response |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (statements by non‑testifying co‑defendant may violate Confrontation Clause)
- Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601 (Pa. 2015) (PCRA standard for ineffective assistance)
- Commonwealth v. Paddy, 800 A.2d 294 (Pa. 2002) (defendant’s agreement to tactical decisions waives later ineffective‑assistance claim)
- Commonwealth v. Rios, 920 A.2d 790 (Pa. 2007) (colloquy establishing defendant’s assent defeats later claim re: witnesses)
- Commonwealth v. Pander, 100 A.3d 626 (Pa. Super. 2014) (same principle re: colloquy and witness decisions)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (must raise PCRA‑counsel ineffectiveness in response to Rule 907)
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (issues not raised in lower court are waived on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (standards for counsel filing a no‑merit letter in PCRA proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural framework cited with Finley for PCRA counsel practice)