Com. v. Bagley, T.
Com. v. Bagley, T. No. 2419 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.May 16, 2017Background
- Tarik Bagley was convicted by a jury of first‑degree murder and multiple weapons and related charges arising from a March 7, 2010 homicide and subsequent shootings; he received life without parole plus concurrent/consecutive shorter terms.
- Direct appeal affirmed; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal. Bagley filed a timely pro se PCRA petition, later amended, raising ineffective‑assistance claims; the PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing limited to witness‑related ineffectiveness issues.
- Trial defense principally advanced an alibi (Bagley elsewhere) while also arguing that the unknown shooter may have acted in self‑defense because the victim was armed; counsel elicited evidence and argued both themes at trial.
- Bagley claimed trial counsel ineffectively (1) argued inconsistent defenses (alibi vs. self‑defense); (2) failed to call Bernice Akanno and Jeanatta Bagley as witnesses; (3) failed to obtain Ronald Johnson’s phone records to corroborate an alibi; and (4) cumulative ineffective assistance.
- PCRA court found counsel’s conduct to have had reasonable strategic bases: counsel unequivocally pursued an alibi, used self‑defense as an explanatory theory about the unknown shooter, declined to call Akanno because her testimony conflicted with the alibi, chose Ada Bagley over Jeanatta to avoid contradictory testimony, and could not produce phone records Johnson did not possess.
- Superior Court affirmed dismissal of the PCRA petition, holding Bagley failed to meet the three‑prong ineffectiveness test and therefore suffered no individual or cumulative prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for arguing inconsistent defenses (alibi vs. self‑defense) | Bagley: counsel set up self‑defense and thus created an irreconcilable inconsistency with an alibi | Commonwealth/PCRA: counsel advanced an alibi and used self‑defense only as a theory that an unknown person (not Bagley) killed the victim; not inconsistent | Denied — counsel unequivocally pursued an alibi; self‑defense was a compatible explanatory theory; no arguable merit to claim |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to call Bernice Akanno | Bagley: Akanno would have corroborated alibi and been helpful | Commonwealth/PCRA: Akanno’s statements conflicted with Johnson and Bagley; counsel reasonably declined to call a witness who could harm the alibi | Denied — counsel had reasonable basis; no prejudice shown |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to call Jeanatta Bagley | Bagley: Jeanatta would have supported timeline/vehicle evidence | Commonwealth/PCRA: counsel strategically called Ada Bagley instead to avoid contradictory testimony and believed Ada was a better presenter | Denied — strategic choice with reasonable basis; no prejudice shown |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain Ronald Johnson’s phone records | Bagley: records would have corroborated a call at 11:55 p.m. supporting alibi | Commonwealth/PCRA: Johnson testified he had no records, phone, or recall to enable discovery; counsel cannot produce what witness lacks | Denied — records did not exist/be obtainable; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601 (Pa. 2015) (standard of review for PCRA credibility and ineffective assistance analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 470 (Pa. 2014) (cumulative‑error/ineffectiveness doctrine—multiple meritless claims do not warrant relief collectively)
- Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 750 A.2d 261 (Pa. 2000) (elements required to show counsel ineffective for failing to call a witness)
- Commonwealth v. Auker, 681 A.2d 1305 (Pa. 1996) (counsel not ineffective for not investigating/calling a witness absent showing the testimony would help the defense)
- Commonwealth v. (Michael) Pierce, 786 A.2d 203 (Pa. 2001) (second prong of ineffectiveness test concerns whether counsel’s decisions lacked a reasonable basis)