Com. v. Downie, G.
1659 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 7, 2016Background
- In July 2003 Gregory Downie robbed victims at gunpoint; he was convicted of robbery and carrying a firearm without a license after a jury trial.
- At sentencing in 2004 Judge Chiovero imposed a mandatory 10–20 year minimum as a "second strike" under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714 based on a prior 2000 first-degree robbery conviction (plea before Judge DeFino).
- Downie filed a timely pro se PCRA petition in 2004; proceedings included remand and evidentiary hearings addressing counsel effectiveness; direct appeal rights were later reinstated and the sentence affirmed.
- Downie filed a second pro se PCRA petition in 2012 and an amended PCRA petition in 2014 alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion for reconsideration of sentence.
- The PCRA court denied relief in May 2015, concluding the prior 2000 conviction qualified as a first-strike robbery under § 9714 and that counsel’s failure to file a motion would have been futile; no evidentiary hearing was required.
- The Superior Court affirmed, finding the record supported the PCRA court’s factual findings and legal conclusions that Downie suffered no prejudice and that denying a hearing was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion for reconsideration of sentence | Downie: counsel should have moved for reconsideration because the Commonwealth presented no evidence of the factual basis for the 2000 plea used to trigger § 9714 | Commonwealth: Downie bore the burden to proffer facts; records (PSR, secure court summary) show prior F1 robbery so § 9714 applied; a motion would have been futile | Denied — counsel not ineffective; no prejudice because § 9714 properly applied based on the record |
| Whether the PCRA court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on the ineffectiveness claim | Downie: hearing needed to develop fact issue about prior plea/factual basis | Commonwealth: record documents showed prior F1 robbery; no material factual dispute so hearing unnecessary | Denied — no abuse of discretion; no genuine issue of material fact requiring a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601 (Pa. 2015) (standard of review for PCRA decisions and hearings)
- Commonwealth v. Bomar, 104 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2014) (three-prong ineffective assistance test and presumption of counsel effectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Foster, 17 A.3d 332 (Pa. 2011) (post-sentence motion failure does not foreclose challenge to legality of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no automatic right to PCRA evidentiary hearing where record shows no genuine disputed material fact)
- Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 819 A.2d 81 (Pa. Super. 2003) (same principle regarding PCRA hearings)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915 (Pa. 2009) (briefing deficiencies can waive appellate claims)