Com. v. Collins, M., Com. v. Collins, M. No. 3815 EDA 2015

Background

On Oct. 10, 2005 Hassan Bentley was shot and killed on N. 20th Street, Philadelphia; multiple eyewitnesses were present and shell casings were recovered.
Initial investigation yielded a description but no identification; the case went cold until 2008 when Clarence Milton (while facing charges) identified Malik Collins as the shooter and Jose Briggs later identified Collins from a photo array.
Collins was arrested Jan. 21, 2010, tried by jury, and convicted (Nov. 20, 2012) of first‑degree murder, criminal conspiracy, and PIC; sentence: life without parole plus 22½–50 years.
Collins’s direct appeal was affirmed by the Superior Court (Nov. 7, 2013); Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance (May 13, 2014).
Collins filed a pro se PCRA petition (Dec. 2, 2014); counsel filed a Finley/no‑merit letter and moved to withdraw; the PCRA court issued notice under Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 and dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing (Dec. 4, 2015).
Collins appealed pro se, raising ten ineffective‑assistance claims (investigation, challenges to identification/probable cause, Miranda/arrest issues, failure to call witnesses/character witnesses, and appellate counsel ineffectiveness). The PCRA court addressed each claim and found them meritless or undeveloped; the Superior Court adopted that opinion and affirmed (June 27, 2017).

Issues

Issue	Collins' Argument	Commonwealth / PCRA Court Argument	Held
1. Failure to investigate / challenge probable cause	Collins: trial counsel (Wallace) failed to adequately investigate and attack probable cause for arrest.	Probable cause existed based on eyewitness identifications and investigatory corroboration; claim lacks arguable merit.	Dismissed — no arguable merit.
2. Re‑charging / arrest / Miranda	Collins: counsel failed to object to re‑charging without arrest or Miranda warnings.	No custodial statements by Collins were used; no prejudice from any alleged failure to object.	Dismissed — no prejudice; meritless.
3. Sufficiency / arrest of judgment	Collins: evidence was speculative/conjectural; court abused discretion denying arrest of judgment.	Superior Court already affirmed sufficiency on direct appeal; claim is previously litigated and without merit.	Dismissed — claim precluded/meritless.
4. Prosecutorial misconduct / mens rea	Collins: prosecutor failed to prove mens rea; counsel failed to preserve/protest prosecutorial misconduct.	No record basis for prosecutorial misconduct; claims undeveloped and counsel presumed effective.	Dismissed — meritless.
5–6. Witness inconsistencies / perjury (Milton, Briggs)	Collins: counsel failed to expose witness perjury/inconsistencies (Milton allegedly incarcerated; Briggs recanted).	Witnesses were extensively cross‑examined; prior identifications were admitted per existing law; claims are factually incorrect or litigated.	Dismissed — no merit; cross‑examination performed.
7. Failure to call character witnesses (Willie Bell)	Collins: counsel failed to locate/call character witnesses who could show alibi or undermine Milton.	Collins offered no affidavits or sworn proffers; counsel attempted to locate witnesses; petitioner confirmed resting without calling witnesses.	Dismissed — undeveloped, no proof of availability/prejudice.
8–10. Appellate counsel ineffectiveness / misstatements	Collins: appellate counsel failed to raise issues and misrepresented facts in brief.	Appellate counsel may not raise his own ineffectiveness; claims undeveloped or unintelligible and show no prejudice.	Dismissed — undeveloped and without prejudice.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for reviewing PCRA dismissal)
Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595 (Pa. 2013) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for denial of evidentiary hearing)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test and prejudice requirement)
Commonwealth v. Hall, 867 A.2d 619 (Pa. Super. 2005) (counsel not ineffective for failing to pursue meritless claims)
Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35 (Pa. 2012) (ineffectiveness claims are not self‑proving; undeveloped claims insufficient)
Commonwealth v. Hickman, 799 A.2d 136 (Pa. Super. 2002) (deference to PCRA court findings)