Com. v. Ellis, M.
Com. v. Ellis, M. No. 726 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.May 4, 2017Background
- In the early morning of Dec. 31, 2011, officers observed Michael Ellis driving erratically, failing to stop for lights, and nearly striking an officer during an attempted traffic stop; a pursuit followed ending in a crash.
- Officers observed signs of intoxication; at the hospital a blood draw showed BAC .242.
- Ellis moved to suppress evidence (arguing issues surrounding consent/refusal warnings for the blood draw); the suppression motion was denied.
- After a two-day jury trial Ellis was convicted of multiple offenses including DUI (.16 or higher), DUI-causing accident, REAP, fleeing/eluding, and related offenses; he received 12–72 months’ incarceration plus probation.
- Post-conviction, Ellis filed a PCRA petition raising ineffective-assistance claims (failure to call witnesses at suppression hearing and failure to object to prosecutor’s opening), a Brady claim about a withheld internal-transcript, and newly discovered evidence from a civil suit transcript.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition without a hearing; the Superior Court affirmed, adopting the PCRA court’s reasoning that Ellis failed to show prejudice or materiality warranting relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance for not calling Officer Labella and EMT Jill Fox at suppression hearing | Ellis: counsel should have called them to show blood draw/consent issues and corroborate his version of events | Commonwealth: witnesses were not present at the hospital during the blood draw; their testimony would not have affected suppression ruling | Court: Counsel not ineffective; witnesses would not have addressed the disputed hospital blood draw and no prejudice shown |
| 2. Ineffective assistance for failing to object to prosecutor’s allegedly exaggerated opening (claimed 3-mile chase) | Ellis: counsel should have objected to a materially exaggerated opening statement | Commonwealth: any exaggeration was minor (prosecutor said ~3 miles; record showed ~1 mile) and objection not reasonably likely to change outcome | Court: No ineffectiveness; claim insufficient to show prejudice |
| 3. Brady violation for failure to provide transcript of internal questioning of Officer Labella | Ellis: transcript was favorable/exculpatory and was suppressed | Commonwealth: Ellis failed to show the transcript was material to guilt or punishment | Court: No Brady violation; Ellis did not establish materiality or prejudice |
| 4. New evidence (civil suit transcript/testimony of Labella and Fox) entitles Ellis to a new trial | Ellis: testimony/transcript from civil case constitutes exculpatory/new evidence not available at trial | Commonwealth: the civil testimony concerned ambulance events, not the hospital blood draw at issue; not material | Court: Denied; transcript/testimony not relevant to the disputed hospital blood draw and does not compel a new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Conway, 14 A.3d 101 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for PCRA denial)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2007) (deference to PCRA court’s factual findings)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellate review not bound by PCRA court’s legal conclusions)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to accused when material to guilt or punishment)
- Commonwealth v. Ellis, 116 A.3d 692 (Pa. Super. 2014) (prior direct-appeal decision setting out trial facts and convictions)