Com. v. Hawkins, S.
Com. v. Hawkins, S. No. 1186 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 23, 2017Background
- Hawkins was convicted of voluntary manslaughter (stemming from a 2009 stabbing captured on surveillance video) and sentenced to 8–20 years; the Superior Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal.
- At trial Hawkins testified in support of a self-defense theory, described himself as non‑violent, and suggested the victim had gang affiliation/violent tendencies; the Commonwealth introduced a video of Hawkins performing a violent rap song after Hawkins testified.
- Hawkins filed a timely PCRA petition arguing trial counsel (Marinaro) was ineffective for (1) failing to adequately prepare him to testify (to avoid eliciting testimony that would permit admission of the rap video) and (2) failing to seek limited admissibility (i.e., admit character/state‑of‑mind testimony only for a limited purpose).
- At the PCRA evidentiary hearing both Hawkins and trial counsel testified that they discussed the rap video, the risks of testifying, and the defense strategy (portraying the victim as violent/Bloods) before trial; counsel objected to the rap video at trial but the court overruled the objection and counsel later attempted to minimize its significance to the jury.
- The PCRA court denied relief, concluding Hawkins failed all three Strickland/Pierce prongs because (a) the underlying self‑defense theory lacked arguable merit in light of the surveillance video showing Hawkins as the initial aggressor and failing to retreat, (b) counsel had reasonable strategic bases for the choices made, and (c) Hawkins could not show prejudice because the rap video did not affect the outcome given the controlling surveillance footage.
- The Superior Court granted PCRA counsel’s Turner/Finley withdrawal, performed independent review, adopted the PCRA court’s reasoning, and affirmed the denial of the PCRA petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to prepare Hawkins not to testify about his peaceful character, which opened the door to admission of a violent rap video | Hawkins: counsel failed to instruct him to avoid testifying about his non‑violent character; that testimony allowed admission of the rap video | Commonwealth/PCRA court: counsel discussed risks and the video with Hawkins; counsel reasonably pursued a strategy to portray the victim as violent to explain flight and support self‑defense | Held: No ineffective assistance — underlying self‑defense lacked arguable merit given surveillance video; counsel had reasonable strategic bases; no prejudice shown |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek limited/admitted‑for‑purpose‑only admission of Hawkins’s testimony about victim’s violent/gang affiliation | Hawkins: counsel should have limited the testimony to state of mind to avoid using it to admit the rap video for propensity | Trial counsel/PCRA court: counsel reasonably used testimony to explain fear/flight and informed Hawkins of risks; objections to the rap video were made; strategy was to mitigate homicide charge | Held: No ineffective assistance — same reasons: no arguable merit, reasonable strategy, no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural requirements for counsel withdrawal on collateral appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (companion to Turner on no‑merit procedures)
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (requires court’s independent review when PCRA counsel seeks withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (establishes three‑prong ineffective assistance test under Pennsylvania law)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (federal standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Rollins, 738 A.2d 435 (Pa. 1999) (presumption of counsel effectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA denials)