Com. v. Cannon, O.
896 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 4, 2017Background
- In 2010 a jury convicted Odell Cannon of third‑degree murder and conspiracy to commit aggravated assault for his role in the 2006 killing of Brian Brown; sentence 25–50 years.
- Direct appeal affirmed; judgment of sentence became final November 25, 2011. Cannon filed a timely PCRA petition in 2012; amended petition followed and a limited evidentiary hearing was held August 18, 2014.
- At the PCRA hearing Cannon attempted mid‑hearing to proceed pro se; the PCRA court denied the belated request as untimely and delay‑motivated.
- The PCRA court limited the hearing to two claims (conflict of interest and failure to call/interview Edgar Barber) and ultimately dismissed the petition on September 25, 2014; Cannon appealed.
- On appeal the Superior Court affirmed: it found Cannon’s pro se request untimely, rejected ineffective‑assistance claims for failing to admit hearsay and for not calling witnesses (strategy and admissibility defects), and found no actual conflict of interest by trial counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cannon) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of mid‑hearing request to proceed pro se | Request to represent himself during evidentiary hearing was proper | Request was untimely, made after years of proceedings and for delay/confusion | Denial affirmed — request untimely and not unequivocal |
| Trial counsel ineffective for failing to admit Pittman/Pinder hearsay (Gardner statement) | Statements on porch showing Gardner’s motive were admissible and could change outcome | Statements were hearsay and lacked corroborating trustworthiness under Pa.R.E. 804(b)(3) | Denied — statements inadmissible; claim lacks arguable merit |
| Appellate counsel ineffective for not appealing exclusion of that evidence | Appellate counsel should have challenged exclusion | Underlying evidence was inadmissible, so no merit to appeal | Denied — derivative claim fails because trial claim lacks merit |
| Trial counsel ineffective for not calling Edgar Barber | Barber would have testified favorably on key phone‑call detail | Counsel reasonably decided (with client’s agreement) not to call Barber for strategic reasons | Denied — counsel had reasonable trial strategy; no deficient performance |
| Trial counsel ineffective for not calling Terry Gardner/Kahil Raison | Gardner or Raison would have provided exculpatory testimony | Gardner was unavailable and would have invoked Fifth; Raison claim waived/undeveloped | Denied — lack of availability/arguable merit or waiver |
| Conflict of interest from prior representation of Barber | Counsel previously represented Barber and labored under an actual conflict | Prior representation unrelated, no overlapping representation or adverse effect; client informed | Denied — no actual conflict shown; no adverse effect on performance |
| PCRA court abused discretion by not expanding hearing / failing to address sentencing claim | Needed wider evidentiary hearing and address alleged sentencing error | Claims waived, untimely, or lacked arguable merit; supplemental 1925(b) issues not preserved | Denied — PCRA court acted within discretion; sentencing claim waived for appellate review |
Key Cases Cited
- El v. Commonwealth, 977 A.2d 1158 (Pa. 2009) (timely and unequivocal request required to invoke Faretta right)
- Grazier v. Commonwealth, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (procedure for accepting a defendant's waiver of counsel)
- Busanet v. Commonwealth, 54 A.3d 35 (Pa. 2012) (hearsay and evidentiary rules in criminal trials)
- Fulton v. Commonwealth, 830 A.2d 567 (Pa. 2003) (three‑prong ineffective assistance test)
- Tharp v. Commonwealth, 101 A.3d 736 (Pa. 2014) (actual conflict of interest standard)
- Washington v. Commonwealth, 927 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007) (requirements for claims that counsel failed to call witnesses)
- Hall v. Commonwealth, 867 A.2d 619 (Pa. Super. 2005) (factors for corroborating circumstances under Pa.R.E. 804(b)(3))
- Mason v. Commonwealth, 130 A.3d 601 (Pa. 2015) (PCRA court discretion on scope of evidentiary hearings)
- Watkins v. Commonwealth, 108 A.3d 692 (Pa. 2014) (PCRA courts may hold limited hearings on some claims)
- Woods v. Commonwealth, 909 A.2d 372 (Pa. Super. 2006) (requirements for preserving issues via Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b))