Com. v. Davis, S., Com. v. Davis, S. No. 2085 EDA 2016

Stephen Davis was convicted and filed a first PCRA petition in Bucks County, which the PCRA court denied; Davis appealed.
Davis alleged trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to call character witnesses and (2) advising him not to testify, resulting in an involuntary/uninformed waiver of his right to testify.
At the PCRA hearing, Davis claimed he provided counsel names/numbers of character witnesses; counsel’s file contained no list and counsel denied receiving usable witnesses.
The only potential character witness at the PCRA hearing was Davis’s mother, who said she would have testified to his reputation for peacefulness; no other willing/available witnesses were produced.
Trial counsel explained strategic reasons for not calling character witnesses (risk of focusing jury on victim’s severe injuries; Commonwealth could introduce Davis’s prior convictions) and for advising Davis not to testify (existing statement to police, risk of cross-examination on crimen falsi convictions, co-defendant’s testimony consistent with defense).
The PCRA court credited counsel’s testimony and found counsel’s decisions were reasonable strategic choices; the Superior Court affirmed the denial of PCRA relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not calling character witnesses	Davis: counsel failed to call witnesses he identified; this lacked reasonable basis	Commonwealth/PCRA court: counsel had strategic reasons and no reliable, willing witnesses besides mother	Denied — counsel had reasonable strategic basis; Davis failed to show prejudice
Whether counsel’s advice caused Davis to unknowingly/involuntarily waive right to testify	Davis: counsel’s advice was unreasonable and consultation insufficient, so waiver was involuntary	Commonwealth/PCRA court: Davis was informed of right, counsel advised not to testify for reasonable tactical reasons; Davis heeded advice	Denied — Davis understood right, counsel’s advice was reasonable, no prejudice shown

Commonwealth v. Conway, 14 A.3d 101 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standard of review for PCRA denial)
Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (deference to PCRA court fact-findings)
Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (appellate review of legal conclusions)
Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 720 A.2d 79 (Pa.) (credibility findings by factfinder are binding when supported)
Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 858 A.3d 1219 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (presumption counsel effective)
Commonwealth v. Turetsky, 925 A.2d 876 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (ineffective assistance three-prong test)
Commonwealth v. Steele, 961 A.2d 786 (Pa.) (failure to prove any prong is fatal to IAC claim)