Com. v. Hiraldo Perez, R.
1723 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 24, 2017Background
- Rodolfo Hiraldo Perez was convicted by jury of first‑degree murder and criminal conspiracy for the 2012 stabbing death of Vladimir Ruiz; sentenced to life plus 20–40 years.
- Direct appeal affirmed by Superior Court; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- Perez filed a pro se PCRA petition; counsel was appointed and an evidentiary hearing was held on August 19, 2016.
- PCRA court denied relief on September 23, 2016; Perez appealed and PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit brief and petition to withdraw.
- Counsel complied with Turner/Finley technical requirements; Superior Court reviewed the merits and considered four ineffective‑assistance claims by Perez.
- Superior Court affirmed the denial of PCRA relief and granted counsel’s petition to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Perez's Argument | Trial Counsel/Commonwealth Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Inadequate communication/preparation | Perez: counsel met insufficiently and failed to prepare him for trial | Counsel met multiple times and used an investigator; PCRA court found adequate preparation | Claim lacks arguable merit; denied |
| 2) Failure to present diminished‑capacity defense | Perez: counsel failed to assert diminished capacity from voluntary intoxication | Record shows counsel argued voluntary intoxication/diminished capacity and jury received corresponding instruction | Claim contradicted by record; lacks merit |
| 3) Failure to call expert on intoxication/diminished capacity | Perez: counsel should have called an expert to negate specific intent | Perez did not identify an available expert or proffer the expert’s proposed testimony; no evidence of prejudice | Claim fails for lack of proffered expert evidence and prejudice |
| 4) Counsel stipulated to Perez’s guilt | Perez: counsel effectively conceded guilt | Counsel’s remarks reflected strategy: Perez testified he stabbed the victim as part of diminished capacity defense; evidence required acknowledging the act | Reasonable strategic basis; claim lacks merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw on no‑merit grounds)
- Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (same)
- Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Turner/Finley compliance and review duties)
- Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768 (Pa. Super. 2014) (ineffective assistance standard and burden)
- Commonwealth v. Legg, 711 A.2d 430 (Pa. 1998) (admissibility of expert testimony on specific intent)
- Commonwealth v. Gwynn, 943 A.2d 940 (Pa. 2008) (requirement to identify available expert and proffer testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Laird, 988 A.2d 618 (Pa. 2010) (limits on diminished‑capacity evidence when asserting innocence)
- Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 25 A.3d 277 (Pa. 2011) (definition and effect of diminished capacity)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (deference to PCRA court credibility findings)
- Commonwealth v. Harvey, 812 A.2d 1190 (Pa. 2002) (time spent with counsel not dispositive of preparation)