Com. v. Dixon, D.
148 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- On Nov. 8, 2008 Michael Ross was fatally shot during an apparent robbery of his store; two masked men fled in an SUV. Appellant Dixon was later treated for a gunshot wound and taken to Mercy Hospital. DNA from the grip of a .22 firearm recovered from an SUV matched Dixon; other witnesses placed Dixon at the scene.
- Dixon was charged with second-degree murder (felony murder), robbery, related firearms offenses, and conspiracy. After a jury trial in Oct. 2010 he was convicted of second-degree murder and related offenses; sentenced to life plus consecutive terms.
- Dixon filed a timely direct appeal (affirmed in part by this Court), then filed a pro se PCRA petition in 2014. Counsel (Pass, then Patterson) filed Turner/Finley no-merit letters seeking withdrawal; the PCRA court issued Rule 907 notices and moved to dismiss.
- Procedural dispute: Dixon’s pro se objections to counsel’s Turner/Finley filing were mailed but not docketed; this Court initially found waiver for failure to respond to the Rule 907 notice, then granted reargument and treated Dixon’s mailed objections as a response for certain purposes.
- The PCRA court dismissed Dixon’s petition without an evidentiary hearing. This appeal challenges (1) acceptance of counsel’s Turner/Finley no-merit letters and withdrawal, (2) the denial of an evidentiary hearing, and (3) numerous ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel subclaims (23 sub-claims), plus related claims about counsel conflict and Brady material (bullet removed from Dixon).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dixon) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA court erred in accepting Turner/Finley no-merit letters and permitting PCRA counsel to withdraw | Turner/Finley letters were insufficient under Mosteller; Dixon objected and counsel withdrawal was improper | PCRA counsel properly followed Turner/Finley; Dixon’s objections were untimely/did not preserve claims as to initial PCRA counsel (Pass) | Court affirmed dismissal; treated Dixon’s mailed objections as response to second Rule 907 only as to Patterson; nonetheless found no meritorious issues and permitted withdrawal |
| Whether Dixon’s ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims entitle him to relief (multiple sub-claims: failure to object to firearms charge, DNA admissibility, failure to investigate shirts/truck, jury-charge objections, Rule 600, Batson, conflict of interest, trial strategy, failure to present removed bullet) | Each sub-claim alleges trial counsel lacked reasonable basis, produced prejudice, and thus satisfies Pierce/Strickland standards | Most sub-claims are meritless, undeveloped, or lack prejudice; some are procedurally defaulted or better addressed on PCRA; evidence (witness IDs, DNA) was overwhelming | Court rejected all sub-claims: many were undeveloped/waived; others meritless on facts or law; no prejudice shown; ineffective-assistance claims fail |
| Whether PCRA court erred by dismissing petition without an evidentiary hearing | Dixon contended disputed material facts required a hearing | Dixon failed to include this argument in his Rule 1925(b) statement; claims lack factual proffers or supporting affidavits required to obtain hearing | Issue waived for failure to preserve in Rule 1925(b); no hearing required |
| Whether suppression of the bullet removed from Dixon’s back violated Brady | Dixon argued the removed bullet (allegedly .22) was exculpatory and the Commonwealth suppressed it | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Dixon knew a bullet was removed; the bullet confirmed his presence (inculpatory), and Dixon failed to show concealment, exculpatory value, or prejudice | Court held Dixon failed to establish a Brady violation; claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Mosteller v. Commonwealth, 633 A.2d 615 (Pa. Super. 1993) (standards for evaluating counsel’s no-merit letter and withdrawal)
- Rykard v. Commonwealth, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (failure to respond to Rule 907 notice waives claims about PCRA counsel’s effectiveness)
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 47 A.3d 63 (Pa. 2012) (meritless underlying claims foreclose derivative ineffective-assistance claims; cumulative-error principles)
- Pierce v. Commonwealth, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (Pierce test for PCRA ineffective-assistance claims adopting Strickland framework)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (benchmark ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
- Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1994) (reasonable-doubt jury instruction analysis)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2012) (limited habeas equitable exception for counsel absence/ineffectiveness in initial collateral review)
- Mosley v. Commonwealth, 585 A.2d 1057 (Pa. Super. 1991) (standards for amendment of criminal information and prejudice analysis)
- Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1990) (invalidating certain definitions of reasonable doubt)