Com. v. Holden, R.
1859 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 19, 2017Background
- Rahmin Holden was convicted of first‑degree murder after a second jury trial and sentenced to life imprisonment; direct appeals were denied by this Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
- Holden filed a timely pro se PCRA petition; counsel was appointed and submitted a Finley no‑merit letter and moved to withdraw.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, Holden responded (after an extension), and the court dismissed the petition and granted counsel’s withdrawal; Holden appealed pro se.
- Central claim: trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call two juvenile cousins (Lanea Staten and Brianna Burrell) as alibi witnesses; counsel also addressed an unavailable eyewitness whose preliminary hearing testimony was read at trial.
- PCRA court conducted an independent review, found counsel had reasonable strategic reasons not to call the alibi witnesses, and concluded other alleged issues were waived for failure to raise them in response to the Rule 907 notice.
- Superior Court affirmed, holding the PCRA court’s findings were supported by the record and free of legal error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Holden) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel ineffective for failing to investigate/call alibi witnesses | Counsel failed to investigate or call two cousins who would provide exculpatory alibi testimony | Counsel had reasonable strategic basis not to call them; their mother’s testimony and other record evidence undermined benefit | Claim denied — PCRA court’s finding supported by record |
| PCRA court failed to perform independent review before adopting no‑merit letter | PCRA counsel didn’t thoroughly review record; court improperly adopted no‑merit letter | PCRA court conducted independent review as shown in its Rule 1925(a) opinion and No‑Merit Letter | Claim denied — court did perform independent review |
| No‑merit letter deficient; counsel failed to include issues Holden wanted | No‑merit letter didn’t address additional alleged meritorious issues for amendment | Issues were not raised in response to Rule 907 and therefore waived; no‑merit letter otherwise adequate | Claim denied — issues waived; no relief on adequacy challenge |
| PCRA counsel ineffective for failing to amend petition/raise constitutional claims | Counsel omitted constitutional claims and didn’t properly amend petition | Claims were not pled or developed in petition or response to Rule 907; many issues waived; unavailable‑witness claim addressed and found waived | Claim denied — waived and no plausible prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (standard of review for PCRA appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Strong, 761 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 2000) (PCRA review principles)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (no‑merit letter procedure)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (requirement to preserve issues in Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b))
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (waiver for failure to respond to Rule 907)
- Commonwealth v. Bazemore, 614 A.2d 684 (Pa. 1992) (admissibility of preliminary‑hearing testimony when witness unavailable)
- Commonwealth v. Lauro, 819 A.2d 100 (Pa. Super. 2003) (remand standard for PCRA counsel ineffectiveness claims)
- Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. 2010) (prejudice inquiry in PCRA counsel ineffectiveness claims)