Com. v. Armstrong, J.
Com. v. Armstrong, J. No. 513 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 17, 2017Background
- Armstrong was convicted in October 2011 of first‑degree murder and PIC for the fatal shooting of Brian Way and sentenced to life; direct appeal affirmed and Supreme Court denied review.
- Armstrong filed a PCRA petition in October 2014 and a supplemental petition in March 2015; counsel was appointed and filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and petition to withdraw.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice, Armstrong responded, and the court dismissed the PCRA petition and granted counsel’s withdrawal; Armstrong appealed pro se.
- On appeal Armstrong asserted: ineffective assistance of trial and PCRA counsel (various subclaims), prosecutorial misconduct in closing, and trial court error excluding Way’s criminal record (alibi/third‑party theory).
- The PCRA court found many claims were waived for failure to raise them in the PCRA petition or before the trial court/direct appeal; one claim (exclusion of Way’s record) had been previously litigated on direct appeal.
- The Superior Court affirmed dismissal, concluding procedural default and prior litigation bars precluded review of the asserted claims.
Issues
| Issue | Armstrong’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IAC by trial counsel (failure to object to prosecutor’s remarks / curative instruction) | Trial counsel failed to object to improper prosecutorial remarks and to request curative instructions, prejudicing the defense | Claims were not pleaded or developed in the PCRA petition; thus waived | Waived: petitioner failed to develop or allege IAC claims in PCRA petition, so appellate review barred |
| IAC by PCRA counsel (failure to develop/argue meritorious claims; Turner/Finley withdrawal) | PCRA counsel was ineffective for filing a no‑merit letter instead of litigating issues | IAC of PCRA counsel must be raised in a serial PCRA petition or in response to Rule 907; not raised below | Not considered on appeal: petitioner failed to raise PCRA‑counsel ineffectiveness in Rule 907 response, so claim is unreviewable now |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (misstating evidence; calling alibi witness a liar) | Prosecutor misstated facts and vouched for conclusions, including attacking alibi witness credibility, denying a fair trial | Misconduct claims not preserved at trial or on direct appeal; absent objection they become IAC claims for counsel to raise | Waived/cognizable? No: claims were unpreserved and thus barred under PCRA waiver rules; underlying remedy would be IAC for failure to object, but IAC not properly presented |
| Exclusion of Way’s criminal record (evidence of third‑party culpability) | Trial court wrongly excluded Way’s criminal record which was probative of third‑party perpetrator theory | This evidentiary claim was litigated on direct appeal and rejected | Not cognizable in PCRA because claim was previously litigated on direct appeal |
| Failure to inform of plea offer | Trial counsel failed to fully inform Armstrong of plea offer (raised in Rule 907 response) | New allegations after Rule 907 notice require amendment; petitioner did not amend PCRA petition | Not considered: new assertions in a Rule 907 response without amendment are barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standards for reviewing PCRA dismissal and raising PCRA counsel issues)
- Commonwealth v. Natividad, 938 A.2d 310 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA petitioner must meaningfully develop IAC claims; boilerplate is insufficient)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 855 A.2d 682 (Pa. 2004) (claims not raised in PCRA petition cannot be raised for first time on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 927 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007) (issues not raised in PCRA petition are waived on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2014) (procedural rules for raising PCRA counsel ineffectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Tedford, 960 A.2d 1 (Pa. 2008) (prosecutorial misconduct unobjected to at trial is treated as IAC claim)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 47 A.3d 63 (Pa. 2012) (claims previously litigated on direct appeal are not cognizable under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (adequacy of Turner/Finley no‑merit letter claims must be raised in Rule 907 response)
- Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (new claims cannot be raised in a Rule 907 response without amending the PCRA petition)