Com. v. Bundy, E., Com. v. Bundy, E. No. 2439 EDA 2015

Background

On April 7, 2006, occupants of a Cadillac were shot; Jason Bryan died of two head wounds and Kevin Robertson was wounded. Ballistics tied .45 casings and bullets to a single .45 firearm. Co-defendant Derrick Edmunds implicated himself; Eric Bundy was arrested May 9, 2006.
A jury convicted Bundy of third-degree murder, attempted murder, conspiracies, aggravated assault, possession of an instrument of crime, and firearms violations; he was sentenced to 33½ to 87 years (Jan. 30, 2009).
Bundy’s direct appeal was denied by the Superior Court and the Supreme Court denied allocatur. He filed a pro se PCRA petition in 2012 and an amended PCRA petition (with counsel) in 2014 alleging multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) claims.
The Commonwealth moved to dismiss for failure to meaningfully develop claims; the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing (July 17, 2015). Bundy appealed.
The Superior Court reviewed whether the PCRA court erred in dismissing without a hearing and affirmed, concluding Bundy’s IAC allegations were meritless, undeveloped, or previously litigated.

Issues

Issue	Bundy’s Argument	Commonwealth / PCRA Court Argument	Held
Whether PCRA court erred in dismissing petition without an evidentiary hearing	Bundy argued his amended PCRA pleaded facts entitling him to a hearing and relief	Court argued claims were patently frivolous/undeveloped and record lacked support for a hearing	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion in denying hearing
IAC — failure to conduct independent investigation	Bundy alleged counsel failed to investigate and would have found exculpatory evidence	Bundy failed to specify what investigation would have shown; mere bald assertions insufficient	Denied: claim undeveloped, no prejudice shown
IAC — failure to locate/interview witnesses	Bundy claimed witnesses existed who would help defense	No affidavits/identities; Bundy did not satisfy the Thomas/Johnson five-prong showing	Denied: no evidence witness existed or would testify
IAC — failure to retain forensic expert re: number of shooters	Bundy said an expert would show only one shooter, undermining case against him	Bundy failed to identify an expert or produce a report; undeveloped claim	Denied: speculative, no proof of prejudice
IAC — failure to object to hearsay identifying Bundy as shooter	Bundy claims counsel failed to object/preserve hearsay challenge	Bundy did not point to the specific transcript or record to support claim	Denied: underdeveloped
IAC — failure to file motion for new trial based on weight of evidence	Bundy argued verdict was against weight of evidence (inconsistencies in Robertson’s testimony)	Trial and Superior Courts already considered weight claim on direct appeal; reserved for factfinder; not meritorious	Denied: previously litigated and meritless
IAC — counsel’s alleged physical/mental incapacity and failure to withdraw	Bundy claimed counsel should have withdrawn due to incapacity	No evidence or record support; speculation and hindsight not enough	Denied: undeveloped and no prejudice shown

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review for PCRA dismissals without an evidentiary hearing)
Commonwealth v. Wah, 42 A.3d 335 (Pa. Super. 2012) (PCRA court may decline a hearing if claims are patently frivolous or without record support)
Commonwealth v. Charleston, 94 A.3d 1012 (Pa. Super. 2014) (three-prong IAC test under the PCRA)
Commonwealth v. Thomas, 44 A.3d 120 (Pa. 2012) (requirements to establish prejudice from failing to call a witness; five-prong showing)
Commonwealth v. Wharton, 811 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2002) (undeveloped IAC claims are insufficient)
Commonwealth v. Hall, 867 A.2d 619 (Pa. Super. 2005) (counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to pursue meritless claims)