Com. v. Bradley, T.
2230 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 5, 2016Background
- Tracey R. Bradley was convicted by a jury of first‑degree murder and related offenses for the death of Lee Choppin in a motel room; direct appeal and state supreme court review were denied.
- Bradley filed a timely first PCRA petition challenging (among other things) voluntariness of his statements, sufficiency of proof of cause of death, and trial counsel effectiveness.
- Court‑appointed PCRA counsel withdrew under Turner/Finley; the PCRA court gave Bradley notice of intent to dismiss and ordered a Rule 1925(b) statement, which Bradley did not file (he later claimed he mailed it).
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing; Bradley appealed pro se.
- The Superior Court concluded a remand to resolve the mailbox dispute would be wasted because the PCRA court had substantively addressed Bradley’s identifiable claims and those claims lacked merit; any unidentifiable issues were deemed waived due to briefing defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver for failure to file Rule 1925(b) statement | Bradley contends he mailed the 1925(b) statement from prison. | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Bradley did not file the statement; failure to comply waives issues. | Superior Court: Although normally remit to decide mailbox rule would be required, remand would waste resources because PCRA court adequately addressed Bradley’s identifiable claims; unaddressed issues waived. |
| Voluntariness/Miranda challenge to confession | Bradley argues his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated (Miranda/Commonwealth v. Gwyn). | Trial/PCRA court: Issue was litigated at omnibus hearing, post‑sentence motions, and on direct appeal. | Dismissed as previously litigated; not cognizable on PCRA under §9543(a)(3). |
| Sufficiency: cause of death | Bradley argues Commonwealth failed to prove cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt (alleges medical perjury; defense expert said natural causes). | Commonwealth: Issue was raised at trial (defense expert testified), post‑sentence motion, and on direct appeal. | Dismissed as previously litigated; not a basis for PCRA relief. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (cross‑examination, witness impeachment, expert handling) | Bradley claims counsel failed to adequately impeach witnesses (Hardy, Williams), improperly handled officers’ questioning, and failed regarding medical causation. | PCRA/trial court: Record shows extensive cross‑examination, impeachment efforts, and the defense called its own medical expert; no arguable merit or prejudice shown. | Denied—Bradley failed to satisfy the three‑prong ineffective assistance test (arguable merit, reasonable basis for counsel’s actions, and prejudice); no hearing required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (failure to comply with court order can result in waiver on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423 (Pa. 1997) (prisoner mailbox rule; mailing can be treated as filing date)
- Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard and scope of review on PCRA appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (three‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (review of PCRA court’s legal conclusions)
- Commonwealth v. Bauhammers, 92 A.3d 708 (Pa. 2014) (no hearing required if record shows underlying claim lacks arguable merit or prejudice)