Com. v. Echols, L.
Com. v. Echols, L. No. 2644 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 16, 2017Background
- Victim George Paramour was fatally shot during a March 23, 2005 robbery; eyewitness Nicole Thompson identified Leonard Echols at the scene and later to police.
- Echols was arrested, Mirandized, nodded in response to warnings, and made incriminating statements during a Detective Pirrone interview.
- At trial (Aug. 2007) Echols was convicted of second-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy and was sentenced to life imprisonment; direct appeal and Pennsylvania Supreme Court review were denied.
- Echols filed a PCRA petition raising four ineffective-assistance claims (appellate counsel re: suppression/waiver argument; trial counsel failure to fully impeach Thompson; failure to object to jury instruction on voluntariness burden; failure to object to prior-bad-acts charge).
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition without a hearing; the Superior Court affirmed, applying Strickland/Pierce standards and concluding Echols failed to show arguable merit or prejudice for each claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Appellate counsel ineffective re: Miranda waiver | Appellate counsel should have argued nodding was not an explicit waiver and relied on Bussey/Hughes requiring explicit waiver | Court: precedent (Bomar) permits inferring waiver from conduct; appellate argument would not have succeeded | Rejected — no prejudice; Bomar allows inferred waiver |
| 2. Trial counsel failed to impeach eyewitness Thompson | Counsel omitted impeachment (crimen falsi, aliases, probation) that would have undermined Thompson’s ID testimony | Trial counsel already thoroughly attacked credibility; additional impeachment would not likely change outcome | Rejected — no prejudice; credibility attack sufficed |
| 3. Trial counsel failed to object to jury instruction on voluntariness burden | Jury should have been told Commonwealth must prove voluntariness by preponderance | Commonwealth: no authority requires specific preponderance instruction; standard jury instructions and beyond-a-reasonable-doubt charge sufficient | Rejected — no merit; Ort and standard instructions control |
| 4. Trial counsel failed to object to prior-bad-acts instruction | Charge treated prior bad acts as established facts or lacked burden of proof and prejudiced Echols | Court: trial court gave limiting instruction matching standard jury instruction and cautioned jury on limited use | Rejected — no prejudice or error; limiting instruction proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bomar, 826 A.2d 831 (Pa. 2003) (waiver can be inferred from words and conduct; explicit oral waiver not required)
- Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739 (Pa. 2014) (standard for appellate-ineffectiveness prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Ort, 581 A.2d 230 (Pa. Super. 1990) (no requirement to instruct jury that voluntariness must be proved by preponderance)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (Strickland-based three-part test applied in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Small, 980 A.2d 549 (Pa. 2009) (no prejudice where counsel already effectively attacked witness credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Staton, 120 A.3d 277 (Pa. 2015) (PCRA/ineffectiveness standards and precedents)