Com. v. Christine, J.
Com. v. Christine, J. No. 3816 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 1, 2017Background
- On Feb 22–23, 2007 police responded to a Super 8 Motel shooting; two victims identified Jacob Christine as the shooter. Officers obtained a warrant for Room 126 and found a handgun, $3,529, 82.5 g cocaine, and 128 g marijuana.
- Christine initially pled nolo contendere in Nov 2007 under a negotiated deal, successfully withdrew that plea, then pled guilty on June 6, 2008 to two aggravated assaults, carrying a firearm without a license, and PWID counts; aggregate sentence 4.5–9 years plus 5 years probation.
- Christine pursued direct appeal (affirmed by Superior Court and denial of allowance of appeal), then filed a timely pro se PCRA petition raising multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) claims against three prior lawyers (Schiesser, Parlow, Wiseman) and alleging transcript tampering.
- The PCRA court held multiple hearings (testimony from prior counsel, detective, and Christine), corrected a transcription discrepancy after comparing audio, and denied relief on Dec 2, 2015; Superior Court affirmed on appeal.
- The PCRA court applied the three-prong Strickland/Kimball test (merit, no reasonable strategic basis, prejudice) and found (1) Schiesser reasonably declined suppression/other pretrial motions because the search warrant and Rule 600 timeline were sound, (2) Parlow’s handling of the plea, post-sentence rights, and appellaterelated advice was not ineffective, and (3) Wiseman was not ineffective for not pursuing a baseless transcript-tampering claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| I. IAC — Schiesser failed to file suppression motion | Christine: counsel ignored requests to suppress search-warrant fruits and pressured plea | Schiesser: strategy to preserve negotiated deal; motion likely meritless because affidavit showed probable cause | Court: No IAC — warrant valid under totality; suppression/Rule 600 motion would have failed; strategic decision reasonable |
| II. IAC — Parlow at plea stage & post-sentence | Christine: Parlow coerced plea, misinformed about appellate rights, failed to protect interests or file post-sentence motions | Parlow: plea colloquy and written colloquy show plea was knowing and voluntary; defendant declined further representation and did not request appeals | Court: No IAC — plea knowingly/voluntarily entered; no meritorious issues for appeal; Parlow’s conduct reasonable |
| III. IAC — Parlow failed to file Rule 600 / nominal bail motion | Christine: pretrial incarceration exceeded limits and coerced plea | Parlow: Rule 600 calculations showed no violation; excludable periods made a Rule 600 claim meritless | Court: No IAC — timing/calculations correct; motion would be baseless |
| IV. IAC — Wiseman/transcript tampering & cumulative error | Christine: PCRA counsel failed to investigate alleged Commonwealth alteration of transcripts; cumulative ineffective assistance | Wiseman: believed transcript claim meritless; PCRA court reviewed audio and corrected transcript where discrepancy existed | Court: No IAC — court compared recordings and corrected errors; transcript-tampering claim unfounded; cumulative claim waived or without merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for IAC: performance and prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Kimball, 724 A.2d 326 (Pa. 1999) (adopts multi-prong test for PCRA IAC claims)
- Commonwealth v. duPont, 860 A.2d 525 (Pa. Super. 2004) (PCRA prejudice standard and burden on petitioner)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard for appellate review of PCRA dismissals)
- Commonwealth v. Galvin, 985 A.2d 783 (Pa. 2009) (probable cause review for search warrants focuses on affidavit four corners and totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Watson, 724 A.2d 289 (Pa. 1999) (scope of search warrant includes containers where the object may be secreted)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 40 A.3d 1245 (Pa. Super. 2012) (plain-view doctrine elements)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (standards for waiving appellate counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501 (Pa. 2005) (prejudice prong can dispose of IAC claim without analyzing other prongs)
- Commonwealth v. Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053 (Pa. 2013) (technical violations of procedure do not automatically require suppression)