Com. v. Holley, J.
36 WDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 9, 2022Background
- On Sept. 27, 2014, Jessie James Holley was accused of sexually assaulting an 11‑year‑old; he was charged with multiple sexual offenses and tried four times.
- Trial I (Sept. 2015): deadlocked jury → mistrial.
- Trial II (Dec. 2016): Commonwealth disclosed previously overlooked DNA test showing Holley’s DNA on bed sheets after defense opening → trial court denied motion to exclude and declared mistrial.
- Trial III (Mar. 2017): additional undisclosed materials (victim note, forensic interview) were produced the day of trial; mistrial declared after Commonwealth offered plea.
- Trial IV (May 2017): Holley filed a pro se double‑jeopardy motion adopted by counsel; no hearing was held, the court denied the motion without the findings required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 587(B), and Holley was convicted.
- On PCRA review Holley alleged ineffective assistance: trial counsel failed to secure a Rule 587(B) hearing and to preserve the double‑jeopardy claim; appellate counsel failed to raise double jeopardy on appeal. The PCRA court dismissed without an evidentiary hearing; the Superior Court vacated and remanded, finding material factual disputes that require a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Holley) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA court abused its discretion in dismissing without a hearing | Holley: factual issues exist about prosecutorial discovery failures and counsel's omissions, so a hearing is required | PCRA court: no merit shown; judge who authored dismissal was not the trial judge and deferred to earlier trial court rulings | Superior Court: vacated dismissal and remanded for an evidentiary hearing because genuine issues of material fact exist |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not obtaining a Rule 587(B) hearing / making a factual record | Holley: counsel waived creation of the record and failed to preserve double‑jeopardy arguments, undermining appellant’s ability to show prosecutorial intent/recklessness | Commonwealth: actions did not amount to misconduct that barred retrial; prior trial judge denied dismissal | Superior Court: remand for hearing to determine whether counsel had a reasonable basis and whether prejudice resulted (arguable merit/prong analysis required) |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising double jeopardy on direct appeal | Holley: appellate counsel omitted an obvious double‑jeopardy claim that could have succeeded given discovery misconduct and Rule 587(B) defects | Commonwealth: appellate issues raised were adequate; double jeopardy claim lacked record support | Superior Court: warranted investigation at PCRA hearing to determine reasonableness of appellate strategy and prejudice |
| Whether retrial was barred by double jeopardy because Commonwealth’s discovery failures caused mistrials | Holley: serial mistrials caused by Commonwealth’s late disclosures were intentional or egregious, triggering Pennsylvania double‑jeopardy protection | Commonwealth: mistrials do not necessarily bar retrial absent intent to ‘goad’ or egregious prosecutorial misconduct; insufficient record to find such intent | Superior Court: undecided on merits—record lacks findings on Commonwealth intent/recklessness; PCRA court must hold a hearing to develop facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 231 A.3d 807 (Pa. 2020) (distinguishes federal and Pennsylvania double‑jeopardy standards; PA law bars retrial for prosecutorial misconduct that denies a fair trial and may include reckless overreaching)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 615 A.2d 321 (Pa. 1992) (Pennsylvania double jeopardy bars retrial where prosecutor intentionally prejudices defendant to deny a fair trial)
- Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2021) (PCRA relief requires counsel’s error to undermine truth‑determining process)
- Commonwealth v. Reid, 259 A.3d 395 (Pa. 2021) (PCRA ineffective‑assistance test: arguable merit, reasonable basis, and prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no absolute right to PCRA evidentiary hearing when no genuine material factual disputes)
- Commonwealth v. R. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009) (importance of PCRA hearings for credibility determinations and development of factual record)