Com. v. Flourney, C.
253 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 22, 2017Background
- On Nov. 10, 2007, two uniformed Philadelphia officers were fired upon; muzzle flashes and 16 spent casings were recovered at the scene. A bullet struck the patrol car windshield.
- Officers observed two males firing toward the patrol car; they identified Christopher Flourney as one shooter during the pursuit and saw him holding a handgun.
- Co-defendant Lashawn Reaves was shot in the leg during the encounter; police later found a 9mm Ruger hidden in a wall of a house where Flourney was located and a black hooded sweatshirt; ballistics matched the casings to that gun.
- Flourney and Reaves were tried jointly; Flourney was convicted of attempted murder and related offenses and sentenced to 25–50 years (one weapon charge later acquitted).
- Flourney filed a PCRA petition claiming trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to interview/call eyewitness Ellen Banning and (2) failing to object or seek a limiting instruction regarding a redacted statement by co-defendant Reaves; the PCRA court dismissed without a hearing and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Flourney's Argument | Commonwealth's / Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counsel ineffective for not contacting/calling eyewitness Ellen Banning | Banning’s unsigned statement contradicted key prosecution facts and would have exculpated Flourney | Flourney failed to show Banning’s availability or willingness to testify; no certification/affidavit provided | Denied — petitioner failed to satisfy Clark factors (no proof witness was available/willing); no hearing required |
| Counsel ineffective for not objecting to admission of redacted co-defendant statement or for not requesting limiting instruction | Redactions still contextually identified Flourney; trial counsel should have objected and sought limiting instruction under Confrontation Clause/Bruton | Statement was redacted substituting neutral terms (“the other guy,” “him”), so Bruton was satisfied; objection would have lacked merit; withholding a limiting instruction, even if deficient, was not prejudicial given overwhelming evidence | Denied — no valid basis to exclude redacted statement; even assuming deficient performance, no prejudice given overwhelming evidence |
| Entitlement to evidentiary hearing on PCRA claims | Hearing needed to develop witness availability and effectiveness evidence | PCRA court may dismiss without hearing if claims are conclusory, frivolous, or unsupported by record | Denied — PCRA court did not abuse discretion; claims lacked factual support in the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (co-defendant confession that incriminates another may violate Confrontation Clause unless non-testifying declarant’s statements are redacted or declarant testifies)
- Commonwealth v. Clark, 961 A.2d 80 (Pa. 2008) (setting requirements for ineffective-assistance claims based on failure to call witness)
- Commonwealth v. Daniels, 104 A.3d 267 (Pa. 2014) (Bruton satisfied where redaction uses neutral pronouns and limiting instruction given)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (ineffective-assistance standard articulated)
- Commonwealth v. Reed, 42 A.3d 314 (Pa. Super. 2012) (prejudice prong: reasonable probability result would differ but for counsel’s errors)
- Commonwealth v. Simpson, 66 A.3d 253 (Pa. 2013) (ineffectiveness claim fails if any prong unmet)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 161 A.3d 960 (Pa. Super. 2017) (PCRA claims about uncalled witnesses may be dismissed absent affidavits showing availability/willingness)
- Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 25 A.3d 277 (Pa. 2011) (no prejudice where overwhelming evidence of guilt made challenged omission harmless)
- Commonwealth v. Wah, 42 A.3d 335 (Pa. Super. 2012) (PCRA court has discretion to deny evidentiary hearing when claims lack record support)