Com. v. Dawkins, M., 1206 WDA 2016

Mica Horatio Dawkins was tried by jury and convicted of possession with intent to deliver heroin, two counts of possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia; sentenced to 5–10 years (May 13, 2014). No post-sentence motions were filed.
Dawkins filed pro se motions and retained counsel; a PCRA petition was filed on February 3, 2016. The trial court resentenced Dawkins to 2.5–5 years on June 21, 2016 and denied remaining PCRA claims on July 22, 2016.
Dawkins’ sole PCRA claim: trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object or move for a mistrial after the prosecutor’s opening statement allegedly said Dawkins admitted to possessing heroin with intent to deliver.
The prosecutor’s opening referenced admissions only as to ownership of a bulletproof vest; no statement in opening actually said Dawkins admitted possessing heroin.
At trial, the probation officer testified Dawkins admitted owning the vest and provided the safe combination; no testimony showed Dawkins admitted possession of heroin. The Commonwealth presented strong inculpatory evidence (heroin quantity, cash, stamp bags, vest, safe).
The PCRA court dismissed the petition without a hearing; the Superior Court affirmed, finding the alleged prosecutorial misstatement not objectionable, not prejudicial, and counsel not ineffective for failing to make a meritless objection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the PCRA court erred by denying a hearing on Dawkins’s ineffective-assistance claim	Dawkins: trial counsel ineffective for not objecting when prosecutor supposedly said Dawkins admitted to possessing heroin, causing prejudice	Commonwealth/PCRA court: prosecutor did not say Dawkins admitted to possessing heroin; only that he admitted the vest was his; no objection warranted	Held: No error. Prosecutor’s statement did not assert an admission to heroin possession; jury was instructed statements are not evidence; evidence showed only vest admission; no prejudice or reasonable probability of different outcome

Commonwealth v. Wilson, 824 A.2d 331 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739 (Pa. 2014) (PCRA court may dismiss without a hearing when no genuine issue of material fact exists)
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 10 A.3d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2010) (presumption of effective assistance; burden on petitioner)
Commonwealth v. Fulton, 830 A.2d 567 (Pa. Super. 2003) (three-prong test for ineffective assistance under PCRA)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 811 A.2d 994 (Pa. Super. 2002) (failure to satisfy any prong defeats ineffectiveness claim)
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 716 A.2d 580 (Pa. 1998) (jury presumed to follow court instructions)
Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (defendant must show actual prejudice; overwhelming evidence can negate prejudice)