Com. v. Hawkins, J.
257 A.3d 1
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- Appellant James Hawkins was accused of assaulting a former intimate partner (M.H.); Officer Abel observed M.H. with a black eye and took the report.
- The next day officers went to Hawkins’s multi‑unit building without warrants, knocked at the main entry, and Melissa Dono opened the door and led officers to the third‑floor unit where Hawkins was present.
- Officers observed a stamp bag of heroin in plain view, arrested Hawkins, and later located larger quantities of heroin and crack inside a Crown Royal bag protruding from Molly Alexander’s purse; Alexander was arrested too.
- Hawkins’s trial counsel did not file a timely pretrial suppression motion; Hawkins was convicted after a nonjury trial and later filed a PCRA petition claiming counsel was ineffective for failing to seek suppression.
- On remand the PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing (Dono did not testify), credited Officer Abel that he saw M.H.’s recent injury and that Dono lived in the apartment and consented to entry, and denied relief; Hawkins appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Hawkins' Argument | Commonwealth/PCRA Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a suppression motion | Counsel was ineffective because evidence stemmed from a warrantless entry/arrest and should have been suppressed | Counsel’s performance was not prejudicial because entry and arrest were lawful (valid third‑party consent; §2711 arrest) | Denied—no relief; PCRA court credibility findings supported and Hawkins failed to meet burden of prejudice |
| Validity of third‑party consent to enter | Dono’s consent was coerced/intimidated by police banging and announcing; she lacked authority to consent | Dono had common/apparent authority, voluntarily allowed officers in, and officers reasonably relied on her representation | Consent held valid; Hawkins failed to prove consent involuntary (Dono didn’t testify; court credited officers) |
| Lawfulness of warrantless arrest under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2711(a) ("recent physical injury") | Arrest unlawful because the injury was 2–3 days old and therefore not "recent" | Officer observed observable bruising and was told injury occurred 1–2 days earlier; that suffices as "recent" under §2711(a) | Arrest held lawful; bruising 1–3 days after incident qualifies as recent for §2711 purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness of consent is a fact question judged by totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Strickler, 757 A.2d 884 (Pa. 2000) (analysis of police/citizen encounter and consent voluntariness)
- Commonwealth v. Kemp, 961 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2008) (Commonwealth bears burden to prove consent was voluntary)
- Commonwealth v. Strader, 931 A.2d 630 (Pa. 2007) (apparent authority doctrine for third‑party consent)
- Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559 (1999) (Fourth Amendment permits warrantless arrests in public where officer has probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 742 A.2d 661 (Pa. 1999) (discusses §2711 limits; context on weapons seizure and Fourth Amendment)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (PCRA standard: credibility findings of trial court are binding on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Wilmer, 194 A.3d 564 (Pa. 2018) (warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable absent an established exception)