Com. v. Feliciano, M.
Com. v. Feliciano, M. No. 2417 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 3, 2017Background
- On October 30, 2010, Michael Feliciano confronted Edwin Bayron outside Bayron’s girlfriend (Feliciano’s estranged wife) Erica Brandau’s apartment; a fight ensued and Bayron was stabbed multiple times and hospitalized.
- No weapon was found at the scene; Bayron testified he never saw a knife; Brandau and her son provided eyewitness accounts; other potential witnesses’ accounts emerged later in varying forms.
- Feliciano was convicted by a jury of attempted murder, two counts of aggravated assault, simple assault, and possession of an instrument of crime; sentenced to 10–20 years’ imprisonment plus probation; appeals were exhausted.
- Feliciano filed a timely PCRA petition asserting multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims (failure to call witnesses, failure to use medical/back-injury evidence, improper redaction of his medical records, and failure to request a PSI); PCRA court denied relief.
- On appeal from denial of PCRA relief, the Superior Court reviewed whether counsel’s alleged deficiencies had legal merit, reasonable basis, and caused prejudice sufficient to undermine the truth-determining process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Feliciano) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Trial counsel failed to call eyewitness Lawrence Cooper | Cooper’s statement would have provided exculpatory evidence and undermined prosecution theory | Cooper did not testify at PCRA; statement surfaced later; availability, willingness, and credibility are doubtful; testimony would be cumulative/questionable | Denied — counsel not ineffective; Sneed factors not met and no prejudice shown |
| 2. Trial counsel failed to call Keyani Smith to rebut Brandau | Smith would show Brandau knew Feliciano was coming and that Feliciano had no ill intent | Smith only heard Feliciano’s side of a phone call and could not confirm Brandau’s knowledge; statement not outcome-determinative | Denied — no prejudice; testimony would not have changed outcome |
| 3. Trial counsel failed to call hospital witness about Bayron saying he was stabbed "from behind" | Medical records contain a discharge-line suggesting an unknown assailant; witness could show inconsistency with prosecution theory | Discharge language not clearly Bayron’s statement; no identified hospital witness; trial counsel argued the records to jury already | Denied — no showing witness existed/available; testimony would be cumulative |
| 4. Counsel failed to present evidence of Feliciano’s prior back injury (physical incapacity) | 2007 motorcycle injury left Feliciano incapable of committing the assault | 2010 exam showed full range of motion and no tenderness; counsel reasonably strategized that raising a bad back could invite adverse inferences | Denied — no prejudice; tactical choice reasonable |
| 5. Counsel failed to redact references to Feliciano being "cleared for incarceration" in medical records | References prejudicially branded Feliciano as incarcerated/convicted | Brief references are not equivalent to prison garb; jurors already knew Feliciano was jailed from other evidence | Denied — no prejudice from unredacted references |
| 6. Counsel failed to request a pre-sentence investigation (PSI) | A PSI would have developed mitigating medical/character information and improved sentencing | Counsel testified he never requests PSIs believing they rarely help; defense presented character witnesses at sentencing; PSI could have revealed prior violent history | Denied — tactical decision reasonable and not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 105 A.3d 1257 (Pa. 2014) (standard of appellate review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 17 A.3d 873 (Pa. 2011) (PCRA relief for ineffective assistance requires undermining truth-determining process)
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 143 A.3d 394 (Pa. Super. 2016) (presumption that counsel is effective)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong deficient performance and prejudice test)
- Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601 (Pa. 2015) (three-prong test for ineffective assistance in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Faurelus, 147 A.3d 905 (Pa. Super. 2016) (failure to satisfy any prong defeats claim)
- Commonwealth v. Solano, 129 A.3d 1156 (Pa. 2015) (requirements for claims based on failure to call witnesses)
- Commonwealth v. Sneed, 45 A.3d 1096 (Pa. 2012) (same — five-part witness test)
- Commonwealth v. Tharp, 101 A.3d 736 (Pa. 2014) (no ineffectiveness when proposed testimony is cumulative)
- Commonwealth v. Ervin, 766 A.2d 859 (Pa. Super. 2000) (counsel’s tactical choices given deference; only unreasonable strategies constitute ineffectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Cruz, 311 A.2d 691 (Pa. 1973) (concern about prejudicial effect of prison attire in court)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 838 A.2d 663 (Pa. 2003) (discussing limits on references to incarceration)