Com. v. Hickman, S.
1811 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- Shawn Michael Hickman was convicted after a consolidated jury trial on multiple burglary, theft, receiving stolen property, criminal mischief, attempted burglary, conspiracy, robbery (inflicting serious bodily injury), and REAP counts.
- Original sentencing occurred January 29, 2010; procedural irregularities led to resentencing on September 30, 2013 at two docket numbers (one term 8–16 years; another 2–4 years plus 5 years probation, consecutive).
- This Court affirmed the judgments on May 9, 2014; the Supreme Court denied review. Hickman filed a timely pro se PCRA petition on March 19, 2015, later amended and captioned under both dockets.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the PCRA petition on November 23, 2016; Hickman appealed.
- Hickman’s PCRA alleged trial counsel ineffectiveness in two respects: (1) failure to impeach Commonwealth witness Leann Knuf with a recent crimen falsi conviction; and (2) failure to investigate whether eyewitness Thomas Gordon had hearing loss that would affect voice identification.
- The PCRA court and this Court found both claims unproven and without merit, affirming dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counsel failed to impeach witness Knuf with a >10-year crimen falsi conviction | Knuf had pleaded guilty in 2009 to theft by unlawful taking; impeachment would have undermined her credibility and aided defense | Knuf already admitted culpability at trial; her testimony was corroborated by another witness; petitioner produced no documentation of the prior conviction | No ineffective assistance; no reasonable probability of different outcome; claim lacked evidentiary support |
| Counsel failed to investigate whether eyewitness Gordon had hearing loss affecting voice ID | Gordon frequently asked questions to be repeated at trial; counsel should have investigated hearing loss (deaf in one ear) which would impeach his identification | Claim arose post-trial and must satisfy after-discovered evidence test; petitioner delayed and provided no affidavits or proof; record not pointed to specific instances; no showing evidence was unobtainable before trial | No ineffective assistance; claim fails under after-discovered evidence standards and for lack of substantiation |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 165 A.3d 34 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standards for proving ineffective assistance under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Hickman, 104 A.3d 44 (Pa. Super. 2014) (prior appellate disposition of Hickman’s sentences)
- Commonwealth v. Hickman, 99 A.3d 924 (Pa. 2014) (Supreme Court disposition denying further relief)
- Commonwealth v. Pepe, 897 A.2d 463 (Pa. Super. 2006) (panel decisions binding unless Supreme Court intervenes)
- Commonwealth v. King, 999 A.2d 598 (Pa. Super. 2010) (judgment finality timing for PCRA filings)
- Commonwealth v. Fransen, 42 A.3d 1100 (Pa. Super. 2012) (waiver for failure to point to record support)
- Commonwealth v. Beshore, 916 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2007) (argument development and waiver rules)