Com. v. Garcia, J.
131 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 21, 2017Background
- Garcia was convicted in 2013 of sexual offenses for an assault of a five‑year‑old in 2006; sentenced to 8½–25 years; direct appeal affirmed.
- He filed a timely pro se PCRA petition in 2014; counsel was later appointed and filed an amended petition.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice of intent to dismiss; Garcia filed both counseled and pro se responses; the petition was dismissed on December 20, 2016.
- Garcia appealed pro se after a Grazier hearing permitted self‑representation on appeal and withdrawal of PCRA counsel’s concise statement.
- The Superior Court reviewed waiver and ineffectiveness claims, applied the three‑part ineffectiveness test, and affirmed the PCRA court’s dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Garcia) | Defendant's Argument (PCRA/ Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to request competency hearing for child witness | Victim could not remember events; counsel should have demanded competency; prejudice probably leading to acquittal | Child appeared competent at oath and on direct; presumption of competency; counsel’s decision had reasonable basis | Denied — no ineffective assistance; no arguable merit or prejudice |
| 2. Failure to request bias jury instruction re: witness Midina | Midina previously testified about uncharged acts, so special bias instruction was needed | Midina did not testify to uncharged conduct at trial; court gave general bias instruction; tactical choice | Denied — reasonable trial strategy; no ineffectiveness |
| 3. Failure to present alleged hallway “coaching” witnesses | Two witnesses overheard mother coaching victim; counsel failed to present them | No proof counsel knew of witnesses or their testimony; claim undeveloped; other corroborating evidence existed | Denied — failure to plead/establish materiality and prejudice |
| 4. Failure to object to Dr. Sotack’s medical testimony | Dr. Sotack’s opinion was based on hearsay from victim, not own observations | Record shows Dr. Sotack observed swelling and redness; counsel cross‑examined vigorously | Denied — testimony supported by doctor’s observations; objections would be meritless |
| 5. Failure to retain a medical expert to challenge swelling cause | An expert could have offered alternative causes for vulvar redness (illness, soiling) | Petitioner failed to file expert certification required for evidentiary hearing under PCRA; claim not preserved | Denied — procedural noncompliance and no entitlement to hearing |
| 6. Ineffectiveness of PCRA counsel (late response, inadequate amended petition) | PCRA counsel filed a late Rule 907 response and an amended petition that didn’t justify a hearing | Claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness must be raised in a timely PCRA filing, not first on appeal | Denied — claim waived for raising first on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standard and analysis for PCRA ineffective‑assistance claims)
- Miller v. Commonwealth, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 815 A.2d 598 (Pa. 2002) (waiver of claims not raised at trial or on direct appeal)
- Delbridge v. Commonwealth, 855 A.2d 27 (Pa. 2003) (competency standards for child witnesses)
- Blakeney v. Commonwealth, 108 A.3d 739 (Pa. 2014) (liberal construction of pro se filings but same standards apply)
- Henkel v. Commonwealth, 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2014) (PCR A counsel ineffectiveness claims cannot first be raised on appeal)