Com. v. Cabrera, P.
Com. v. Cabrera, P. No. 970 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Mar 23, 2017Background
- In 2009 Cabrera was arrested and later tried (June 2012) on charges including Person Not to Possess a Firearm and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia; jury convicted him on those two counts and acquitted on possession with intent to deliver.
- Cabrera was sentenced in November 2012; Superior Court affirmed on direct appeal in March 2014.
- Cabrera filed a pro se PCRA petition (May 2014), later amended and counsel appointed; he alleged trial counsel was ineffective for failing to locate and call his long‑time girlfriend, Vanessa (Victoria) Rolon, as an exculpatory witness.
- At the PCRA evidentiary hearing (Feb. 19, 2016): Cabrera testified he wanted Rolon called and provided a number; Rolon testified she carried a box upstairs that she did not inspect and did not know the gun’s owner; trial counsel McQuillan testified he had an invalid phone number for Rolon, had no notes identifying her as a favorable witness, and would have called her if he had verified she was favorable and available.
- Trial evidence showed officers located a handgun in a closet after Cabrera allegedly told them the items were his; Cabrera testified at trial that he claimed ownership to get officers to leave his family alone and denied knowledge/ownership of the guns and drugs.
- PCRA court denied relief, finding Cabrera failed to prove counsel acted without reasonable basis or that Rolon was available/willing and that her testimony would have been sufficiently non‑cumulative or credible to produce prejudice; Superior Court affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Cabrera's Argument | Commonwealth / Trial Counsel Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate and call Vanessa (Victoria) Rolon as an exculpatory witness | McQuillan failed to exhaust reasonable means to contact Rolon and thus deprived Cabrera of corroborating exculpatory testimony; reasonable probability of different outcome if Rolon testified | Counsel had a reasonable basis: he had an invalid phone number, no file notes identifying Rolon as a favorable witness, attempted contact was unsuccessful; Rolon’s PCRA testimony was inconsistent and potentially biased; Cabrera testified at trial himself so any Rolon testimony would have been cumulative | Denied — PCRA court found no ineffectiveness (no showing Rolon was available/willing or that absence of her testimony caused prejudice); Superior Court affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rainey, 928 A.2d 215 (Pa. 2007) (standards for reviewing PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. McSloy, 751 A.2d 666 (Pa. Super. 2000) (presumption counsel was effective; burden on appellant)
- Commonwealth v. Stewart, 84 A.3d 701 (Pa. Super. 2013) (three‑part ineffective assistance test)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (reasonableness standard for counsel’s strategic choices)
- Commonwealth v. Miner, 44 A.3d 648 (Pa. Super. 2012) (elements to prove failure to call witness claim)