Com. v. Fairman, S.
1834 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 22, 2017Background
- Shaun Casey Fairman fatally shot Richard Shotts after forcing entry into his estranged wife’s home on June 2, 2012; Fairman was then shot by his wife.
- A jury convicted Fairman of second-degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and burglary; he received life without parole for murder and concurrent terms for other offenses.
- Fairman appealed and this Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal.
- Fairman filed a PCRA petition alleging trial and appellate counsel were ineffective (including failure to file a suppression motion and failure to raise a weight-of-the-evidence claim on appeal).
- The PCRA court reinstated Fairman’s right to raise the weight claim on appeal (finding appellate counsel ineffective for not raising it) but denied relief on the suppression-claim ineffectiveness.
- This appeal followed; the Superior Court vacated portions of the PCRA order and remanded for clarification and further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions for 2nd-degree murder and burglary were against the weight of the evidence | Fairman: trial evidence was insufficiently reliable; weight claim merited review | Commonwealth: claim forfeited because no post-trial (Rule 607(A)) motion was filed after conviction | Court: Weight claim not properly before appellate court because Fairman failed to file a post-trial motion; remand to PCRA court to clarify whether it reinstated right to file a nunc pro tunc post-trial motion, then allow trial court to rule before appellate review |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress Fairman’s post-shooting statements (intoxicated, bleeding, depressed) | Fairman: statements were made under conditions (intoxication, pain, mental state) warranting suppression; counsel ineffective for not moving | Commonwealth: PCRA court adjudicated merits, but Commonwealth did not contest reinstatement of appeal rights | Court: PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to decide merits of ineffectiveness claim while Fairman’s judgment was not final after reinstatement; vacated denial of this claim without prejudice pending finality of judgment and possible subsequent PCRA filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483 (Pa. 2009) (failure to preserve weight claim in a post-trial motion is fatal regardless of later Rule 1925 filings)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 648 A.2d 1177 (Pa. 1994) (appellate review of weight claims is limited to abuse of discretion by trial court)
- Commonwealth v. Hankerson, 118 A.3d 415 (Pa. Super. 2015) (trial court must first rule on post-trial weight motion before appellate review)
- Commonwealth v. Romberger, 378 A.2d 283 (Pa. 1977) (procedural requirement for preserving weight claims)
- Commonwealth v. Liston, 977 A.2d 1089 (Pa. 2009) (reinstatement of direct appeal rights does not automatically restore right to file post-trial motions nunc pro tunc)
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 114 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2015) (PCRA court lacks jurisdiction to decide additional claims while judgment is not final after reinstatement of appeal rights)