Com. v. Coker, C.
Com. v. Coker, C. No. 2397 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 26, 2017Background
- On April 13, 2003, Christopher Coker shot Jermane Morgan; Morgan later died. Coker was tried, convicted of voluntary manslaughter and possessing an instrument of crime, and sentenced to 7–14 years plus probation.
- Coker did not file a direct appeal; later sought reinstatement of appeal rights via PCRA; appeal rights were reinstated and counsel appointed. Direct appeal was unsuccessful.
- Coker filed a timely PCRA petition (2010) alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (Todd Henry) and appellate counsel (Richard Brown). PCRA counsel filed a no‑merit letter; petition was later amended and counsel substituted.
- The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and, after a Grazier hearing, dismissed the PCRA petition without an evidentiary hearing on June 30, 2016. Coker appealed.
- The Superior Court reviewed seven discrete ineffective‑assistance claims, applying the three‑part Spotz/Strickland framework and the standard that no hearing is required where claims lack arguable merit or prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Coker) | Defendant's Argument (PCRA/Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Prosecutor’s race references in opening | Prosecutor injected race (victim described as "young black man") and thereby prejudiced jury | References were ill‑advised but did not inflame racial bias because both defendant and victim were African‑American; not outcome‑determinative | Denied—no relief; claim without merit |
| 2. Prosecutor implied defendant would testify | Comment that "one person who will not be taking this stand is [the victim]… physical evidence will speak for him" allegedly implied Coker would testify, violating Fifth Amendment | No precedent that noting a defendant would testify violates rights; statement not reasonably read to force adverse inference | Denied—no prejudice shown; meritless |
| 3. Conflict of interest (prior representation) | Trial counsel formerly represented daughter of Commonwealth witness and failed to disclose conflict | Record shows counsel disclosed past representation, daughter did not testify, no contact or competing interests; no actual conflict | Denied—no actual conflict; no presumed prejudice |
| 4. Failure to move for cautionary instruction/mistrial after witness said Coker and friends were "known in the area" | Statement introduced prior bad acts; counsel should have obtained instruction or mistrial | Statement did not reference prior crimes by Coker; it did not implicate Rule 404(b) | Denied—no 404(b) issue; counsel not ineffective |
| 5. Failure to object to detective’s testimony about search warrant | Testimony explaining warrants improperly vouched for case (imprimatur) and was irrelevant | Evidence of probable cause to search was not outcome‑determinative where defendant admitted possessing the gun; no prejudice | Denied—no prejudice; objection would not have altered result |
| 6. Appellate counsel ineffective for not challenging admission that witness was arrested after testifying | Testimony that Wirth was arrested after testifying was irrelevant and prejudicial impeachment evidence | Testimony corroborated Wirth’s claim he returned expecting to face arrest and received no promised benefit; relevant with minimal unfair prejudice | Denied—trial evidence admissible; appellate counsel not ineffective for not raising meritless issue |
| 7. Failure to investigate/call Kia Miller | Counsel failed to call a potentially exculpatory witness | Coker produced no proffer or signed witness certification describing substance of testimony or availability as required by PCRA | Denied—speculative claim; insufficient under PCRA rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel and prejudice standard)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (PCRA ineffective‑assistance three‑prong standard)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501 (Pa. 2005) (context matters in assessing prosecutorial comments; fair response to defense and inferences from evidence are relevant)
- Commonwealth v. Trivigno, 750 A.2d 243 (Pa. 2000) (prosecutorial comment on defendant’s election not to testify violates Fifth Amendment)
- Commonwealth v. Cook, 952 A.2d 594 (Pa. 2008) (testimony that does not mention other crimes does not implicate Rule 404)
- Commonwealth v. Bauhammers, 92 A.3d 708 (Pa. 2014) (no evidentiary hearing required where ineffectiveness claim lacks arguable merit or prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Barnett, 121 A.3d 534 (Pa. Super. 2015) (arguable merit defined; factual accuracy and legal sufficiency assessed)
- Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. 2013) (standard and scope of review on PCRA denial)
Order affirmed.