Com. v. Bradley, A., 364 EDA 2019

Background

Appellant Aaron Bradley was convicted of first-degree murder for the 2010 shooting of Bruce Fox; forensic phone data from the victim’s and girlfriend Tanaya Nelson’s phones tied the victim to the pickup location at the time of the shooting.
After direct-appeal exhaustion, Bradley filed a timely PCRA petition; retained counsel D. Wesley Cornish, who filed an amended petition and supplements that the PCRA court found meritless or underdeveloped.
The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and later dismissed the petition; Cornish requested an extension to respond but the court dismissed the petition without addressing the request.
On appeal, new counsel Michael Wiseman raised claims that prior PCRA counsel (Cornish) was ineffective for failing to develop or raise several claims (trial-counsel alibi witnesses, failure to procure a rebuttal cell‑phone expert, and failures of direct-appeal counsel regarding mental‑health records and juvenile-impeachment rulings).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Bradley (Bradley II) held that a petitioner may raise claims of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness at the first opportunity to do so (including on appeal after new counsel appears) and remanded; the Superior Court vacated the PCRA denial and remanded for development of the specific claims raised.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Bradley)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court)	Held
Whether a PCRA petitioner may raise claims of prior PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness on appeal/remand	New counsel may raise PCRA-counsel ineffectiveness at first opportunity, even on appeal	Prior Superior precedent treated such claims as waived if not raised in Rule 907 response	PA Supreme Court (Bradley II) permits raising such claims at first opportunity; Superior applied and remanded
Whether Cornish was ineffective for inadequately pleading trial counsel’s failure to present alibi witnesses	Cornish copied pro se allegations without factual specificity or witness affidavits; new counsel has signed declarations	PCRA court treated claim as boilerplate and underdeveloped	Superior found the claim raises material facts and remanded for development
Whether Cornish was ineffective for failing to secure/cite a rebuttal cell‑phone expert	Bradley’s proffered expert identified flaws in Commonwealth’s analysis and was available; Cornish could have pursued availability and prejudice evidence	PCRA court denied the claim because expert affidavit did not state availability/willingness and prejudice was not alleged	Superior vacated denial and remanded for the PCRA court to develop and consider the claim
Whether Cornish was ineffective for failing to raise direct-appeal counsel’s challenges (Nelson’s mental‑health records; impeachment by juvenile adjudication)	These trial-court rulings could have been appealed; Cornish failed to raise them	Issues were not previously litigated at PCRA and were not addressed by the PCRA court	Superior held the claims present more than boilerplate and remanded for fact development

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2021) (Permits raising claims of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness at the first opportunity, including on appeal; remand appropriate when record incomplete)
Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (earlier discussion of Rule 907 procedure regarding PCRA counsel ineffectiveness; characterized as dicta in Bradley II)
Commonwealth v. Miller, 212 A.3d 1114 (Pa. Super. 2019) (articulates the three‑part PCRA ineffectiveness test and presumption of effective assistance)
Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. 2010) (explains layered‑ineffectiveness framework—first attorney must be shown ineffective to impute error to successor)
Commonwealth v. Orner, 251 A.3d 819 (Pa. Super. 2021) (en banc) (elements required to prove ineffective assistance for failure to call a witness)