Com. v. Cornelison, T.
891 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 5, 2016Background
- In March 2011 Tom Hal Cornelison III broke into his then-girlfriend Dora Vetter’s apartment; a jury convicted him of burglary, criminal trespass, and criminal mischief. He was sentenced July 19, 2012 to 20–40 months’ incarceration.
- Cornelison obtained PCRA relief in 2013 to reinstate post-sentence and direct-appeal rights; the Superior Court later affirmed his conviction on direct appeal.
- Cornelison filed a subsequent PCRA petition (May 18, 2015) raising multiple ineffective-assistance claims and sentencing challenges; the PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing.
- On April 5, 2016 the PCRA court granted relief only as to sentencing procedure (inadequate PSI and failure to state reasons on the record) and ordered resentencing; it denied or dismissed Cornelison’s ineffective-assistance and other claims.
- Cornelison filed a late notice of appeal from the April 5, 2016 PCRA order; the Superior Court excused the late filing due to the PCRA court’s failure to advise him of appeal rights under Pa.R.Crim.P. 908(E) and considered the merits.
- The Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court’s denial of ineffective-assistance claims (failure to notify of plea offer; alleged failures to cross-examine witnesses; alleged failure to advise about intoxication defense), concluding Cornelison failed to prove prejudice or had abandoned some claims.
Issues
| Issue | Cornelison's Argument | Commonwealth/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Cornelison of Commonwealth plea offer (criminal trespass) before trial | Counsel failed to inform him of a plea offer; would have accepted plea | Counsel notified clients of offers; Cornelison repeatedly insisted on innocence and trial; unsigned plea form is not proof counsel withheld offer | Denied — unsigned form insufficient; trial counsel reasonably believed Cornelison would reject plea and no prejudice shown |
| Whether trial counsel ineffective for failing to cross-examine eyewitness Judith Litko about an inconsistent prior statement | Counsel omitted confronting Litko about inconsistency, undermining defense | Counsel did cross-examine Litko about how she knew defendant and the alleged identification; trial strategy present | Denied — record shows cross-examination on the same issues; no prejudice |
| Whether trial counsel ineffective for failing to cross-examine Dora Vetter about alleged witness intimidation/bribery | Counsel failed to press Vetter on alleged intimidation and post-incident letters, undermining credibility | Counsel extensively cross-examined Vetter about police pressure and her continued professed affection; trial strategy evident | Denied — issues were explored at trial; no prejudice |
| Whether trial counsel ineffective for failing to advise Cornelison that a voluntary-intoxication defense was unavailable | Cornelison believed intoxication would lead to acquittal; says counsel failed to explain defense unavailability | Cornelison effectively abandoned this claim at the PCRA hearing and offered no testimony that counsel failed to advise him; no testimony from counsel on the point | Denied — claim abandoned at PCRA hearing and record lacks proof of counsel deficiency or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Trinidad, 96 A.3d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2014) (timeliness of appeal may be raised sua sponte)
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493 (Pa. Super. 2007) (court breakdown may excuse untimely appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Gaines, 127 A.3d 15 (Pa. Super. 2015) (PCRA order that disposes of all claims is a final appealable order)
- Commonwealth v. Meehan, 628 A.2d 1151 (Pa. Super. 1993) (failure to advise of appeal rights under Rule 908 can excuse untimely appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Kimball, 724 A.2d 326 (Pa. 1999) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Weiss, 81 A.3d 767 (Pa. 2013) (PCRA petitioner must question counsel at hearing to establish counsel’s rationale when asserting ineffectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Chazin, 873 A.2d 732 (Pa. Super. 2005) (elements to prove counsel failed to convey a plea offer)
- Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 858 A.2d 1219 (Pa. Super. 2004) (presumption that counsel’s assistance is effective)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong prejudice/deficiency test for ineffective assistance)