Com. v. Chavious, D.
623 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 1, 2017Background
- Daniel Chavious was convicted by jury of three counts of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance (2009); convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
- Chavious filed a PCRA petition asserting trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain cell phones/phone records that would have shown the phone used for drug buys was not active until a month after the transactions.
- Trial counsel and PCRA counsel sought the phones/records; the physical phones were in Dauphin County evidence storage but were destroyed in August–September 2013 as part of routine biannual evidence disposition before counsel could obtain them.
- Judge Turgeon initially granted relief (finding destruction prejudicial) but Superior Court reversed and remanded, ordering an evidentiary hearing on the circumstances of the phones’ destruction.
- At the remand hearing the county evidence coordinator testified destruction was routine, without Commonwealth direction or knowledge of the court’s prior order; no evidence of bad faith was shown.
- The PCRA court denied relief, finding Chavious failed to show arguable merit or prejudice from counsel’s failure to obtain the records and that destruction was not in bad faith; Superior Court affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Chavious) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel ineffective for not obtaining phone records | Counsel ignored repeated requests; records would show phone inactive at time of buys, undermining ID/evidence | Counsel had no strategic reason to forego records; records were unavailable because destroyed and provider retention expired | Court: Counsel had no reasonable basis for failure (satisfying Pierce second prong), but petitioner cannot show what the records would have proved because records/phones were destroyed; therefore first and prejudice prongs fail — ineffective claim denied |
| Destruction of evidence: due process/bad‑faith destruction | Phones destroyed notwithstanding court order; destruction should trigger adverse inference / relief | Destruction occurred as part of routine county evidence disposition; prosecution did not direct destruction and lacked bad faith | Court: No evidence of Commonwealth bad faith; adverse inference not warranted; destruction unfortunate but routine; no relief solely for destruction |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on destruction | Chavious: hearing needed to explore circumstances and establish bad faith | Commonwealth: hearing generally discretionary on PCRA; factual inquiry unnecessary if destruction was routine | Superior Court: hearing required under remand; on remand PCRA court held hearing; ultimately found no bad faith |
| Sufficiency of remaining evidence absent phone records | Chavious: without phone evidence ID weak; convictions may be tainted | Commonwealth: ample independent evidence — CI buys, undercover officer observations, surveillance video, recovered crack | Court: Even absent phone evidence, testimony (undercover buys, CI emergence with drugs, second buy observed directly, videos) was sufficient to support conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 30 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2011) (distinguishes materially exculpatory evidence from "potentially useful" evidence and requires bad faith to show due process violation for lost/preserved evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 541 A.2d 315 (Pa. 1988) (sets out three‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Pursell, 724 A.2d 293 (Pa. 1999) (reasonable‑basis inquiry for counsel’s strategic decisions under Pierce framework)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 633 A.2d 1100 (Pa. 1993) (prejudice prong explanation: defendant must show reasonable probability that but for counsel’s errors the outcome would have been different)