Com. v. Gagot, M.
Com. v. Gagot, M. No. 1110 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Apr 7, 2017Background
- Marcus Anthony Gagot was convicted by jury of multiple sexual offenses (including rape, aggravated indecent assault, statutory sexual assault, and corruption of minors) against his then-girlfriend’s 13-year-old daughter and sentenced to 15–30 years’ imprisonment.
- His direct appeal was affirmed by this Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- Gagot filed a pro se PCRA petition asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel, constitutional violations, discovery failures (including lack of an arrest warrant copy and missing CYS report), and prosecutorial misconduct.
- PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and moved to withdraw; the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and ultimately dismissed the petition without a hearing.
- Gagot appealed pro se; the Superior Court reviewed the PCRA court’s decision de novo only as to legal conclusions, affording deference to factual findings supported by the record, and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Trial counsel failed to obtain/inspect arrest warrant (Pa.R.Crim.P. 540(D)) | Counsel was ineffective for not obtaining a copy of the arrest warrant and not making inquiries | Counsel’s performance was reasonable; no arguable merit or prejudice shown | Claim fails — PCRA court’s finding of no ineffective assistance affirmed |
| 2. Counsel failed to cross-examine witness (contradictory statements; Pa.R.E. 613) | Counsel should have impeached Ms. Valentine with CYS report contradictions | Cross-examination choices had reasonable bases; no prejudice shown | Claim fails — no ineffective assistance established |
| 3. Counsel misconduct re: retainer and Pa.R.Crim.P. 120(A)(1) (Cronic) | Acceptance of $3,000 retainer put defendant at disadvantage at critical stage, invoking Cronic presumption | No structural error; counsel’s performance not presumptively ineffective | Claim fails — no Cronic relief; ineffectiveness not shown |
| 4. Failure to seek in-camera Ritchie inspection of confidential statements | Counsel should have sought in-camera review of privileged/confidential verbatim statements per Ritchie | No showing that such material existed, was undisclosed, or would have changed outcome | Claim fails — no arguable merit or prejudice shown |
| 5. Failure to develop DNA expertise / obtain RFU values and call expert | Counsel did not adequately challenge DNA evidence or obtain RFU data to cross-examine forensic witness | Counsel’s cross-examination was reasonable; lack of RFU did not create a reasonable probability of different result | Claim fails — no ineffective assistance established |
| 6. Trial court erred denying Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (sufficiency of forcible compulsion) | Evidence failed to prove forcible compulsion element of offenses | Claim is not cognizable under the PCRA and was previously litigated on direct appeal | Claim dismissed — not cognizable on PCRA and previously litigated |
| 7. Prosecutorial misconduct / Brady/discovery (missing RFU, CYS report; Wright as state actor) | Commonwealth withheld exculpatory discovery (RFU values, CYS report) and CYS worker was a state actor | Issue was litigable at trial/direct appeal; not cognizable as a PCRA claim here | Claim dismissed — not cognizable on PCRA and/or waived/previously litigated |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (establishes circumstances for presuming ineffective assistance without specific showing of prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Fulton, 830 A.2d 567 (Pa. 2003) (PCRA ineffective-assistance prejudice/ineffectiveness framework)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 10 A.3d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2010) (presumption that counsel is effective; burden on petitioner)
- Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2007) (deference to PCRA court factual findings when supported by record)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (no deference to legal conclusions of PCRA court)
- Commonwealth v. Berkowitz, 641 A.2d 1161 (Pa. 1994) (forcible compulsion standard in sexual-offense sufficiency analyses)
- Commonwealth v. Ritchie, 502 A.2d 148 (Pa. 1985) (procedure for in-camera review of confidential statements)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures for counsel withdrawal after no-merit letter)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedures for counsel filing no-merit brief and withdrawing)