Com. v. Fields, R.
Com. v. Fields, R. No. 214 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 19, 2017Background
- On March 4, 2012 police responded to shots fired and observed a parked Cadillac with four occupants slouched low in the seats; officer watched the car, backup was delayed, occupants exited and walked away.
- Officer Wintruba detected a strong odor of fresh marijuana, detained and patted down the four men, and handcuffed them for officer safety while awaiting backup.
- Appellant Ricky Fields (identified as the driver) had suspended driving privileges; two handguns were later observed in plain view inside the vehicle and seized after officers returned to the car.
- Fields was charged and convicted at a bench trial of possessing prohibited firearms, carrying firearms without a license, and driving while privileges suspended; sentenced to 4–8 years.
- Fields filed a timely PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to suppress statements under Miranda, failure to challenge arrest and vehicle search, and failure to object to prosecutor’s possession argument).
- The PCRA court denied relief; PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and moved to withdraw. The Superior Court conducted independent review, affirmed the denial, and granted counsel’s withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Fields) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Miranda violation for questioning while handcuffed | Questions about prior arrests/convictions and gun-ownership were custodial interrogation requiring Miranda suppression | Handcuffing, pat-down and brief transport during a Terry detention for officer safety did not create custodial Miranda requirements; moreover certified conviction/nonlicense evidence removed prejudice | Denied — not custodial; claim lacked arguable merit and no prejudice |
| 2. Illegal arrest / detention leading to suppression | Detention, handcuffing and pat-down amounted to an unlawful arrest, tainting evidence | Officers had reasonable suspicion (shots fired, behavior, location); safety handcuffing during investigative detention lawful under precedent | Denied — detention lawful as Terry stop; claim meritless |
| 3. Vehicle search and firearm seizure | Counsel failed to properly contest vehicle search/seizure of firearms | Trial counsel did raise vehicle/search claims on direct appeal; firearms were in plain view from lawful vantage and exigent circumstances/probable cause existed | Denied — search justified under plain-view/Liddie exception; claim without merit |
| 4. Failure to object to prosecutor’s closing on possession law | Prosecutor misstated that mere presence near a gun sufficed for possession; counsel should have objected | Bench trial judge presumed to know law and disregard misstatements; no prejudice shown | Denied — no prejudice in bench trial; ineffective-assistance claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedure for counsel withdrawal in collateral proceedings)
- Finley v. Commonwealth, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (companion to Turner on no-merit withdrawals)
- Pierce v. Pennsylvania, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (three-prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation warnings required)
- Pakacki v. Pennsylvania, 901 A.2d 983 (Pa. 2006) (pat-downs during Terry stops are not custodial for Miranda)
- Revere v. Pennsylvania, 888 A.2d 694 (Pa. 2005) (movement/transport during investigative detention does not automatically create arrest for Miranda)
- Liddie v. Commonwealth, 21 A.3d 229 (Pa. Super. 2011) (vehicle plain-view warrantless search exception)
- Lopez v. Pennsylvania, 739 A.2d 485 (Pa. 1999) (counsel not ineffective for failing to pursue meritless claims)