Com. v. Brown, J.
Com. v. Brown, J. No. 3193 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 10, 2017Background
- James Brown was tried in Philadelphia for the fatal shooting of Kenneth Butts; convicted by jury of third-degree murder and two firearm offenses on July 6, 2015; sentenced to concurrent 20–40 year terms on October 10, 2015.
- Brown was acquitted of possessing an instrument of crime; no additional penalty on remaining count.
- After sentencing Brown filed a notice of appeal and sought leave to file post‑sentence motions nunc pro tunc; the trial court denied leave and ordered a Rule 1925(b) statement.
- Brown raised three claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on appeal: failure to object to prosecutor’s comments about Brown’s post‑arrest invocation of the right to counsel; failure to object to admission of two prior firearms arrests as other‑crimes evidence; failure to request a Billa limiting instruction.
- The trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing some issues; the Superior Court considered whether Brown’s ineffectiveness claims were properly raised on direct appeal under Commonwealth v. Holmes and related authorities.
- The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence and dismissed Brown’s ineffective assistance claims without prejudice to PCRA review, concluding the Holmes exceptions did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Brown's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to prosecutor’s comment on Brown’s post‑arrest invocation of right to counsel | Counsel’s failure was apparent from the record and meritorious; warrants immediate review or remand for evidentiary hearing | Claims should be deferred to PCRA under Holmes; trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain nunc pro tunc motion after appeal; not an extraordinary case | Deferred to PCRA — claim dismissed without prejudice (Holmes exception not met) |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to admission of Brown’s two prior firearms arrests as other‑crimes evidence | Admission was improper; counsel should have objected | Trial court found no merit on the underlying issue; admission and ineffectiveness claim should be raised in PCRA | Dismissed without prejudice to raise in PCRA (Holmes exception not met) |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request a Billa limiting instruction regarding other‑crimes evidence | Failure to request the instruction was ineffective assistance | Trial court addressed this issue on the merits and found no merit to the ineffectiveness claim | Claim dismissed without prejudice to PCRA (trial court reviewed but Superior Court still sends claim to PCRA) |
| Procedural properness of raising ineffective‑assistance claims on direct appeal under Holmes | Brown sought immediate appellate review of record‑based ineffectiveness claims | Commonwealth and trial court relied on Holmes: typically defer to PCRA unless extraordinary or unitary‑review exceptions apply | Holmes exceptions did not apply; Superior Court declined to review and dismissed claims without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (establishes general rule deferring ineffective‑assistance claims to PCRA and two narrow exceptions for direct/expedited review)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (ineffective‑assistance claims ordinarily reserved for collateral PCRA review)
- Commonwealth v. Burno, 94 A.3d 956 (Pa. 2014) (claims of ineffectiveness improperly entertained by trial court should be dismissed without prejudice to PCRA relief)
- Commonwealth v. Billa, 555 A.2d 835 (Pa. 1989) (trial court must give a limiting instruction when other‑crimes evidence is admitted)
- Commonwealth v. Bomar, 826 A.2d 831 (Pa. 2003) (discusses parameters of unitary review and collateral attack exceptions)