195 A.3d 255
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- On June 21, 2013 Appellant Corey Durrett King struck a motorcycle, fled the scene, and led detectives in an approximately ten-block vehicle pursuit; the motorcyclist suffered serious injuries.
- Detectives pursued King in an unmarked vehicle with lights and siren activated; detectives were in plain clothes and King discarded a bag of crack cocaine during the chase.
- King was convicted at jury trial of fleeing/attempting to elude (75 Pa.C.S. § 3733) and related offenses; sentence aggregated to 2½–5 years; direct appeal denied and PA Supreme Court denied allowance.
- King filed a PCRA petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction/raise the statutory defense in 75 Pa.C.S. § 3733(c)(1) (defense where pursuing vehicle was unmarked or, if unmarked, officers were not in uniform/displaying badge).
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition without a hearing, reasoning lights and siren rendered the vehicle clearly identifiable (thus no viable § 3733(c)(1) defense); King appealed.
- The Superior Court found the term “markings” in § 3733(c)(1) ambiguous, adopted PA Admin. Code definitions (37 Pa. Code § 42.3) distinguishing light-bar from markings/decals, held the statutory defense had arguable merit and prejudice, vacated dismissal, and remanded for a hearing on counsel’s reasonable basis for omission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a § 3733(c)(1) defense/jury instruction when pursued by an unmarked car with plain-clothes officers | King: vehicle was unmarked and officers were not in uniform; counsel should have requested the § 3733(c)(1) instruction; omission caused prejudice | Commonwealth/PCRA court: lights and siren made the vehicle "clearly identifiable," so the § 3733(c)(1) defense was inapplicable and counsel reasonably omitted instruction | Superior Court: "markings" is ambiguous; administrative definitions show markings ≠ lights/siren; § 3733(c)(1) defense had arguable merit and prejudiced King; vacated dismissal and remanded for a hearing on counsel's reasonable basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Bomar v. Commonwealth, 104 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2014) (ineffective assistance standard and burden to satisfy prongs)
- Koehler v. Commonwealth, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (deference to counsel’s strategic choices unless no reasonable basis exists)
- Colavita v. Commonwealth, 993 A.2d 874 (Pa. 2010) (preference for hearing to explore counsel’s strategy before finding ineffectiveness)