Com. v. Gardner, T.
759 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 5, 2016Background
- Gardner was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and related offenses for participating in a conspiracy and firing the fatal shot; sentenced to life without parole on October 27, 2010.
- Direct appeal affirmed by this Court; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- Gardner filed a pro se PCRA petition in July 2013; PCRA counsel was appointed and later filed a Turner/Finley petition to withdraw.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, permitted counsel to withdraw, and dismissed the petition on February 9, 2015; order mailed Feb 10, 2015.
- Gardner filed a pro se notice of appeal and was ordered to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement; the court extended the deadline but Gardner filed an untimely 1925(b) statement and raised multiple ineffective-assistance and procedure-related claims.
- The PCRA court found Gardner’s claims waived for failure to file a timely Rule 1925(b) statement and rejected the merits in any event because evidence of guilt was overwhelming, so prejudice could not be shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gardner) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver for untimely Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement | Gardner argued court should consider his claims despite late filing and pro se status | Court invoked Rule 1925(b) discretion and prisoner mailbox rule timelines; pro se status does not excuse noncompliance | Affirmed: trial court acted within discretion to find waiver for untimely statement |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to introduce prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence | Counsel failed to admit prior inconsistent statements (Gore, Hamrick, Pittman, Legree) which could prove facts | Claims not properly developed/part of record; waived by procedural default | Waived under Rule 1925(b); even if considered, prejudice not shown due to overwhelming evidence |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to advise about right to testify | Gardner says counsel misadvised him not to testify based on criminal record, depriving him of choice to testify | Counsel’s advice deemed strategic; claim undeveloped and waived | Waived; alternatively, no prejudice shown so ineffective-assistance claim fails |
| Court’s denial of leave to amend PCRA / dismissal without a hearing | Gardner sought chance to amend and a hearing to present claims | PCRA court has discretion whether to allow amendment or grant hearing | Affirmed: denial of amendment/dismissal without hearing was within court’s discretion; claims waived or meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standard/scope of review for PCRA determinations and ineffective-assistance framework)
- Smith v. Commonwealth, 854 A.2d 597 (Pa. Super. 2004) (untimely Rule 1925(b) statement may be found waived at trial court’s discretion)
- Lyons v. Commonwealth, 833 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2003) (pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules)
- Little v. Commonwealth, 716 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Super. 1998) (prisoner mailbox rule for filing dates)
- Stewart v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 701 (Pa. Super. 2013) (prejudice prong of ineffective-assistance requires reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 828 A.2d 981 (Pa. 2003) (PCRA court has discretion to allow amendment or withdraw/deny relief)
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 544 A.2d 917 (Pa. 1988) (counsel withdrawal procedure under PCRA)
- Finley v. Commonwealth, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (standards for PCRA counsel’s petition to withdraw)