Com. v. Ingram, A.
Com. v. Ingram, A. No. 1722 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 28, 2017Background
- Victim David Atkins was shot dead March 1, 2008; eyewitness and preliminary-hearing testimony implicated Amin Ingram.
- Ingram was arrested after evading capture; trial commenced November 14, 2012.
- Jury convicted Ingram of first-degree murder (mandatory life), robbery, PIC, and firearms offenses; Superior Court affirmed; Supreme Court denied allowance.
- Ingram filed a timely pro se PCRA petition (Oct. 30, 2014); counsel filed an amended PCRA petition (Jan. 13, 2016).
- PCRA claim: appellate counsel was ineffective for abandoning a Rule 600 (speedy-trial) challenge alleging the Commonwealth was responsible for ~850 days of delay.
- PCRA court held Rule 600 claim lacked merit because most delay was excludable (defense continuances and time excusable for the Commonwealth’s due-diligence efforts to locate an unavailable witness); denied PCRA relief. Appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising a Rule 600 speedy-trial claim on direct appeal | Ingram: counsel should have raised Rule 600 because Commonwealth was responsible for 850 days of delay, so claim had arguable merit and caused prejudice | Commonwealth/PCRA court: the bulk of the 1,436 days was excludable (multiple defense continuances and periods properly excluded/extendable due to Commonwealth’s efforts to locate an unavailable witness); adjusted run date was Dec. 13, 2012, so trial (Nov. 14, 2012) was timely | Denied — claim lacked arguable merit; appellate counsel not ineffective; PCRA denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Solano, 906 A.2d 1180 (Pa. 2006) (sets Rule 600 calculation method and exclusion principles)
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 879 A.2d 309 (Pa. Super. 2005) (mechanical run date and adjusted run date framework)
- Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693 (Pa. 2012) (due diligence standard for Commonwealth when witnesses are unavailable)
- Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083 (Pa. 2010) (scope of review for Rule 600 and deference to trial court findings)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 912 A.2d 268 (Pa. 2006) (standard for ineffective assistance in PCRA context)
- Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739 (Pa. 2014) (presumption appellate counsel effective)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 57 A.3d 1185 (Pa. 2012) (three-element test for briefed ineffectiveness claims)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (performance/prejudice framework for ineffective assistance)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (appellate counsel reasonable-basis review)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 864 A.2d 460 (Pa. 2004) (winnowing weaker issues is proper appellate strategy)
- Commonwealth v. Staton, 120 A.3d 277 (Pa. 2015) (reasonable-probability standard for prejudice on appeal)