Com. v. Green, J.
694 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- On April 16, 2011 Green, Martinez, and Lassitter went to Diana Spencer’s home; Martinez shot and killed Spencer; Lassitter supplied the gun and getaway car; Green was convicted at a bench trial of first-degree murder and conspiracy and sentenced to life without parole.
- Green waived a jury trial in exchange for the Commonwealth withdrawing the death-penalty notice; the conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur.
- Green filed a timely pro se PCRA petition raising multiple ineffective-assistance claims (failure to investigate/call Rebecca Hall and others; failure to suppress or disqualify witness Taria Lowden; failure to pursue various pretrial motions; failure to challenge sufficiency/weight of evidence; prosecutorial misconduct; sentencing challenges); counsel filed a no-merit letter and sought leave to withdraw.
- The PCRA court reviewed the record (including a private investigator’s efforts), issued a Rule 907 notice, considered amended pro se filings, and dismissed the petition without a hearing on April 10, 2017.
- The court’s disposition rests on (1) PCRA standards for ineffective assistance (arguable merit; reasonable basis; prejudice), (2) failures of proof as to availability/worth of uncalled witnesses and prejudice, (3) procedural bars (PCRA waivers) to weight/sufficiency claims, and (4) that many proposed issues were meritless or would have been frivolous on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to investigate/interview Rebecca Hall | Hall would impeach Lowden and show Green lacked shared intent | Trial counsel had strategic reason not to call Hall; investigator found Hall’s statements were not exculpatory and she was unreliable | Denied — Green failed to show availability, helpfulness, or prejudice from Hall’s testimony |
| Failure to suppress/disqualify or impeach witness Taria Lowden; no expert to challenge competence | Lowden’s statements inconsistent and she had mental/ intoxication issues; counsel should have suppressed or obtained expert to show incompetence | Counsel cross-examined and impeached Lowden; competency requires clear/convincing proof and court saw no compelling need for psychiatric exam | Denied — credibility issues are for cross-examination; no basis for involuntary competency exam; no prejudice shown |
| Failure to raise prosecutorial misconduct for using allegedly perjured testimony | Prosecutor knowingly used Lowden’s false testimony despite contradictory statements (e.g., Hall) | Objections were made at trial; no proof prosecutor knowingly used perjury; issue lacks merit | Denied — record does not support a claim of prosecutorial misconduct that would have changed outcome |
| Failure to challenge sufficiency/weight of evidence and shared intent (co-conspirator liability) | Evidence did not establish Green’s shared intent or participation sufficient for first-degree murder/conspiracy | Evidence (Lowden, video, statements, post-shooting conduct) supported aiding/agreeing and intent; sufficiency/weight challenges are not cognizable on PCRA or are waived | Denied — sufficiency/weight claims are not cognizable on PCRA (and weight was waived); even on merits evidence was sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Franklin, 990 A.2d 795 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Roane, 142 A.3d 79 (Pa. Super. 2016) (PCRA ineffective-assistance prongs)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 47 A.3d 63 (Pa. 2012) (ineffective-assistance framework and burdens)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (three-prong ineffectiveness test)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (reasonable basis and prejudice analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Boich, 982 A.2d 102 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard for ordering psychiatric competency examination of witness)
- Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 808 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2002) (scope of "grave risk of death" aggravator)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 987 A.2d 699 (Pa. 2009) (errant/ricochet bullet can satisfy grave risk aggravator)
- Commonwealth v. Buck, 709 A.2d 892 (Pa. 1998) (standard for attacking pretrial proof of aggravators)