Com. v. Culver, H.
31 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 13, 2017Background
- On December 14, 2011 Scott Goodman was shot at his father Albert Goodman’s home; Scott later died. Eyewitnesses identified Henry Culver at the scene and a pair of gloves recovered contained Culver’s DNA. Culver fled and was arrested later in Miami using the alias "Rocky Wallace."
- A jury convicted Culver of first-degree murder and related offenses; the court sentenced him to life without parole plus concurrent terms; direct appeal and Pennsylvania Supreme Court review were denied.
- Culver filed a pro se PCRA petition in July 2015; counsel was appointed, later filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and moved to withdraw. The PCRA court gave Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition on December 14, 2016. Culver appealed pro se.
- Culver raised multiple ineffective-assistance claims against trial counsel (failure to present DNA expert, failure to interview witnesses, failure to obtain medical records, failure to challenge or impeach Albert Goodman’s competency/testimony) and claims that PCRA counsel and the PCRA court deprived him of transcripts.
- The PCRA court dismissed the claims without a hearing; this appeal reviewed whether dismissal was supported by the record and free of legal error.
Issues
| Issue | Culver's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel ineffective for not calling a DNA rebuttal expert | Culver: counsel previously said DNA report was troubling and promised an expert; withholding an expert had no reasonable basis and prejudiced him | Commonwealth: counsel effectively cross‑examined the DNA expert; no showing an available expert would testify differently | Denied — no arguable merit; counsel’s cross‑examination adequate and no evidence an expert would change outcome |
| Trial counsel ineffective for not interviewing eyewitnesses Raymond and Saxton pretrial | Culver: counsel had their statements and should have interviewed them to prepare defense | Commonwealth: counsel cross‑examined them at trial; no showing a pretrial interview would have helped or changed outcome | Denied — no prejudice shown; failure to interview not per se ineffective |
| Trial counsel ineffective for not obtaining Florida medical records to explain travel | Culver: records would show he sought medical care, not fleeing, undermining flight inference | Commonwealth: facts (fake ID, alias, non‑response to name calls) supported inference of flight; records would not contradict | Denied — investigation limitation reasonable; records unlikely to rebut flight inference |
| Trial counsel ineffective for failing to challenge or properly impeach Albert Goodman’s competency/testimony | Culver: Goodman’s age/illness produced porous memory and unreliable testimony | Commonwealth: Goodman was competent; defense had opportunity to and did impeach credibility; competency requires clear and convincing proof | Denied — Goodman competent; counsel’s credibility attacks were tactical and sufficient |
| PCRA counsel ineffective and PCRA court deprived Culver of trial transcripts (due process) | Culver: lack of transcripts prevented meaningful PCRA petition and appeal | Commonwealth: claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness cannot be raised first on appeal; initial transcript request was premature and, later, trial transcripts were available to the court | Denied — court lacked jurisdiction to entertain new PCRA‑counsel claims on appeal; Culver’s appeal was not prejudiced because transcripts were available to the appellate court |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (failure to call rebuttal expert not per se ineffective; effective cross‑examination can suffice)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (standards for proving ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 105 A.3d 1257 (Pa. 2014) (trial counsel’s duty to investigate and when failure to interview witnesses is prejudicial)
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 108 A.3d 821 (Pa. 2014) (limits on ineffective‑assistance claims based on failure to investigate)
- Commonwealth v. Boich, 982 A.2d 102 (Pa.Super. 2009) (rule on competency of witnesses and standard for ordering competency inquiry)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa.Super. 2012) (claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness cannot be raised for first time on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Morgan, 364 A.2d 891 (Pa. 1976) (defendant entitled to transcript or equivalent for meaningful appeal)