Com. v. Bonilla, J.
2130 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 29, 2016Background
- Bonilla stabbed Kenny Echevarria to death during a street fight on March 25, 2010, fled to New Jersey, pled guilty in 2010 but successfully vacated that plea and proceeded to trial.
- Following a four-day jury trial with 31 witnesses, Bonilla was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated assault and sentenced to life imprisonment (plus concurrent terms on assault counts).
- Bonilla filed a timely PCRA petition asserting trial counsel was ineffective for (A) not calling three alleged exculpatory witnesses (Emmanuel Ortega, Carmen Irizarry, Julio Bonilla Sr.); (B) not playing Bonilla’s 911 call to the jury; (C) not suppressing or objecting to admission of a knife and photos of knives; and (D) cumulative prejudice.
- An evidentiary PCRA hearing was held; Bonilla and the three contested witnesses testified about what they would have said at trial. Trial counsel testified she either did not know of some witnesses or made strategic choices not to call or play certain evidence.
- The PCRA court found the newly proffered witnesses either not credible, unavailable, of minimal probative value, or cumulative of trial testimony; it also found counsel’s decisions (including not playing the 911 tape and not calling certain witnesses) were reasonable strategic choices.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Bonilla failed to meet any required prong of the Strickland/Martial ineffectiveness framework (arguable merit, lack of reasonable basis, and prejudice).
Issues
| Issue | Bonilla's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Counsel ineffective for not calling Ortega, Irizarry, Bonilla Sr. | Each witness would have provided exculpatory/self-defense testimony and been available to testify. | Counsel either was unaware, attempted contact but witnesses were unwilling/unavailable, or made strategic choices; witnesses’ testimony was cumulative or not credible. | Denied — PCRA court credited counsel, found witnesses not sufficiently credible, available, or prejudicial; no ineffective assistance proven. |
| B. Counsel ineffective for not playing Bonilla’s 911 call | The call, made moments after the event, would show fear/stress and support self-defense; family could identify voice. | Counsel had the tape, but reasonably decided not to play it because refusal to identify could be damaging; informing jury of the call without playing it preserved benefit without risk. | Denied — strategic decision reasonable; playing would likely have been harmful and no prejudice shown. |
| C. Counsel ineffective for failing to suppress/ object to knife photos and other knives | Photos of multiple knives prejudiced jury by suggesting preparedness and undermining self-defense. | Knives were common household items, tested and ruled out as murder weapon; admission not prejudicial and counsel reasonably declined to object. | Denied — no prejudice; counsel’s choice reasonable. |
| D. PCRA court erred in denying petition (cumulative error) | Cumulative effect of alleged failures undermined trial outcome. | All underlying ineffectiveness claims lack merit, so no cumulative prejudice. | Denied — because individual claims were meritless, no cumulative prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Steele, 961 A.2d 786 (Pa. 2008) (three-prong ineffectiveness standard)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 868 A.2d 578 (Pa. Super. 2005) (requirements to show counsel failed to investigate/call witnesses)
- Commonwealth v. Perry, 644 A.2d 705 (Pa. 1994) (use of witness testimony to support mitigation/self-defense)
- Commonwealth v. Weiss, 606 A.2d 439 (Pa. 1992) (admissibility/impact of character-type evidence and identifications)
- Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601 (Pa. 2015) (no cumulative prejudice where underlying ineffectiveness claims lack merit)