Com. v. Hickman, R.
1043 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 27, 2017Background
- Victim was fatally shot on Nov. 15, 2010; ballistic evidence connected a .357 Taurus revolver to the killing and a fingerprint on the victim’s vehicle matched Hickman.
- Hickman confessed after arrest, describing a plan with co-defendant Hashim Rashad to meet the victim and Hickman firing one shot; he later recanted at trial alleging coercion.
- A gun linked to the victim’s killing was recovered after a later, unrelated shooting; Hickman admitted possession of that gun in March 2011 under self‑defense claims concerning a separate shooting.
- A jury convicted Hickman of third‑degree murder, conspiracy to commit homicide, and illegal possession of a firearm; he was sentenced to an aggregate term of 22–44 years.
- Hickman filed a timely PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel at sentencing and during the post‑sentence phase; the PCRA court denied relief and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to present Miller mitigation at sentencing | Hickman: counsel should have presented youth‑related mitigation per Miller because he was a juvenile at offense | Commonwealth: Miller inapplicable because sentence was not life without parole; statutory maximum governed | Court: Miller inapplicable; no ineffectiveness shown |
| Failure to introduce co‑defendant’s pretrial statement at sentencing | Hickman: co‑defendant’s statement admitting he killed the victim was exculpatory and should have been admitted (Green) | Commonwealth: statement not exculpatory in context; Hickman had confession and physical evidence tying him to the crime | Court: statement would not have altered sentence or exonerated Hickman; counsel not ineffective |
| Disproportionate sentence compared to co‑defendant | Hickman: counsel should have challenged sentence as harsher than co‑defendant’s | Commonwealth: co‑defendant wasn’t tried or sentenced at time of sentencing; different convictions | Court: argument unavailable at sentencing and would be unavailing; no ineffectiveness |
| Failure to file a post‑sentence motion | Hickman: he requested a post‑sentence motion raising exculpatory/mitigating evidence which might have reduced sentence | Commonwealth: appellant must show actual prejudice from counsel’s failure | Court: sentence was within range and evidence wouldn’t have produced different outcome; no actual prejudice, so no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (sentencing of juveniles and consideration of youth-related mitigation)
- Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95 (1979) (admission of potentially exculpatory hearsay in capital sentencing under unique reliability circumstances)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (exceptions to hearsay rules where reliability supports admission)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial warnings and waiver requirements)
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standards for proving ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Liston v. Commonwealth, 977 A.2d 1089 (Pa. 2009) (prejudice requirement for certain ineffective assistance claims)
- Reaves v. Commonwealth, 923 A.2d 1119 (Pa. 2007) (requiring prejudice showing for appellate ineffectiveness claims)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel seeking to withdraw on appeal)