Com. v. Dixon, D.
Com. v. Dixon, D. No. 148 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 25, 2017Background
- Darnell Dixon was convicted (jury) of second-degree murder, robbery, carrying a firearm without a license, and conspiracy; a separate firearms charge (bench trial) resulted in conviction as well. Sentences included life for murder plus consecutive terms for remaining convictions.
- Direct appeal affirmed convictions except vacating the robbery sentence; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- Dixon filed a timely pro se PCRA petition (March 3, 2014). PCRA counsel Charles Pass was appointed, then filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and withdrew. The court issued a Rule 907 notice; Dixon attempted pro se filings and later sought to amend to raise ineffective assistance against Pass.
- New PCRA counsel Alan Patterson was appointed and directed to review Dixon’s proposed amendment; Patterson concluded no meritorious issues and filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and sought to withdraw. The court issued a second Rule 907 notice; Dixon did not respond. PCRA petition was dismissed; Dixon appealed pro se.
- Dixon raised numerous claims (including 23 subclaims of trial counsel ineffectiveness and that the court erred in dismissing without an evidentiary hearing). The PCRA court addressed merits but the Superior Court affirmed dismissal primarily on waiver grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether PCRA court abused discretion by accepting Turner/Finley no‑merit letters from PCRA counsel | Dixon: letters failed to meet Mosteller standards; trial/Appellate counsel were ineffective (23 subclaims) | Commonwealth/PCRA court: counsel complied with Turner/Finley; Dixon failed to respond to Rule 907 and thus waived challenges | Waived; Dixon’s failure to respond to Rule 907 notices forfeited challenges to PCRA counsel’s no‑merit letters and related ineffective assistance claims |
| 2. Whether dismissal without an evidentiary hearing denied due process | Dixon: factual disputes required an evidentiary hearing | Commonwealth: issue not preserved on appeal | Waived for appeal because Dixon did not include it in his Rule 1925(b) statement |
| 3. Whether initial PCRA counsel was ineffective for filing Turner/Finley no‑merit letter | Dixon: PCRA counsel’s no‑merit letter was deficient and counsel ineffective | Commonwealth/PCRA court: counsel reviewed record and found no meritorious claims; Dixon failed to respond to notice | Waived by Dixon’s failure to respond; Superior Court also found claims meritless on review |
| 4. Whether any of Dixon’s underlying ineffective assistance claims had merit | Dixon: listed numerous trial- and appellate‑level errors (investigation, Brady, Rule 600, jury instruction, conflict of interest, etc.) | PCRA court/Commonwealth: issues lacked merit; some addressed on direct appeal; record did not support relief | Court affirmed dismissal; even if preserved, the Superior Court found the claims without merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mosteller, 633 A.2d 615 (Pa. Super. 1993) (standards for court review of counsel’s no‑merit letter)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures when counsel seeks to withdraw from PCRA representation)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (no‑merit letter framework for collateral counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (petitioner waives PCRA counsel effectiveness claims by failing to respond to Rule 907 notice)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 824 A.2d 331 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review for PCRA court denial)
- Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (issues not raised in a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement are waived)
- Mariner Chestnut Partners, L.P. v. Lenfest, 152 A.3d 265 (Pa. Super. 2016) (appellate court may affirm on any basis supported by the record)
- Commonwealth v. Whitehawk, 146 A.3d 266 (Pa. Super. 2016) (prisoner mailbox rule for filing dates)