Com. v. Flenoury, C.
Com. v. Flenoury, C. No. 1237 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 19, 2017Background
- In June 2010 a jury convicted Christopher Flenoury of first-degree murder and related firearms offenses; he received life imprisonment.
- This Court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal in 2011; no further review was sought from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
- Flenoury timely filed a pro se PCRA petition in January 2012; counsel later filed an amended PCRA petition in July 2015.
- Flenoury’s amended petition relied on an affidavit from Nicodemo DiPietro claiming that trial witness Antonio Lindsay admitted he lied at trial and had obtained Flenoury’s discovery materials.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing on April 5, 2016; Flenoury appealed.
- The PCRA court found the new evidence would be used solely to impeach Lindsay, was largely cumulative of trial testimony, and would not likely produce a different verdict; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Flenoury) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alleged after-discovered evidence (DiPietro affidavit that Lindsay recanted and accessed discovery) entitles Flenoury to relief/new trial | DiPietro’s affidavit shows Lindsay lied to curry favor with the Commonwealth and had the defendant’s discovery materials; evidence could not have been discovered earlier and would change the verdict | The affidavit only offers impeachment of Lindsay, is cumulative of trial evidence (Lindsay’s motive and access to materials were already addressed), and would not alter the outcome | Court held the evidence was only impeachment/cumulative and would not likely produce a different verdict; claim denied |
| Whether PCRA court abused discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing | Flenoury argued the affidavit created genuine material facts requiring a hearing | Commonwealth argued no genuine issue of material fact existed because the claim lacked merit and could be resolved on the record | Court held no absolute right to a hearing; because the claim lacked merit and was cumulative/impeachment only, dismissal without a hearing was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- D'Amato, 856 A.2d 806 (Pa. 2004) (standards for after-discovered evidence and when a new trial is warranted)
- Randolph, 873 A.2d 1277 (Pa. 2005) (after-discovered evidence requirement that new evidence likely change the verdict)
- Detman, 770 A.2d 359 (Pa. Super. 2001) (recantation evidence that serves only to impeach does not warrant a new trial)
- Hardcastle, 701 A.2d 541 (Pa. 1997) (no absolute right to an evidentiary hearing under the PCRA)