Com. v. Jackson, T., Com. v. Jackson, T. No. 3708 EDA 2015

Background

On April 22, 2007, Appellant Tyrique I. Jackson arrived at a street performance, pulled a gun, and fired shots; one victim (Sterling Almond) died from a chest wound. A jury convicted Jackson of third-degree murder on November 5, 2008.
The trial court sentenced Jackson to 20–40 years’ imprisonment on December 19, 2008. This Court affirmed on direct appeal and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal; conviction became final February 25, 2013.
Jackson filed a pro se PCRA petition on April 2, 2013. Counsel filed a Finley no‑merit letter and sought to withdraw; counsel substituted and withdrew multiple times during proceedings.
The PCRA court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and, after reviewing the no‑merit letter and filings, dismissed the petition on November 19, 2015 and permitted counsel to withdraw.
Jackson appealed pro se, raising ten claims (nine alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, one alleging procedural denial of opportunity to amend his petition).
The Superior Court affirmed, adopting the PCRA court’s opinion concluding the claims lacked merit or were waived and that no evidentiary hearing was required.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jackson)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court)	Held
1. PCRA dismissal without permitting amendment/proceed pro se	PCRA court abused discretion by dismissing petition without giving chance to amend or proceed pro se	PCRA court acted within discretion; petition was properly reviewed and dismissal proper	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion
2. Trial counsel ineffective for not locating/presenting eyewitness Rodney Stevens	Failure to investigate/interview Stevens deprived defense of exculpatory testimony	Claim lacked arguable merit or record support; counsel's strategy reasonable	Affirmed — ineffectiveness claim rejected
3. Failure to object to jury instruction on third‑degree murder / request supplemental "beyond a reasonable doubt" charge	Counsel should have objected to jury instruction and requested clarification on burden of proof	Instructions legally adequate; no prejudice shown; claim lacks merit	Affirmed — no relief
4. Failure to present character witnesses for peaceful reputation	Counsel failed to call available character witnesses showing non‑violence	Decision to call or not call witnesses was reasonable trial strategy; claim fails prong(s) of Strickland	Affirmed — ineffective assistance claim denied
5. Failure to object to prosecutor's closing remarks / request mistrial or cautionary instruction	Prosecutorial misconduct in closing required objection/mistrial request	Remarks did not prejudice or warrant mistrial; counsel not ineffective for tactical choice	Affirmed — claim denied
6. Appellate counsel ineffective for failing to argue trial‑court error prejudice on direct appeal	Appellate counsel omitted a meritorious prejudice argument	Appellate review adequate; omitted issues not shown to satisfy ineffectiveness test	Affirmed — claim rejected
7. Appellate counsel ineffective for not challenging legal sufficiency of the verdict	Counsel failed to raise sufficiency challenge on appeal	Sufficiency claim was meritless or previously litigated; no prejudice shown	Affirmed — claim denied
8. Trial counsel ineffective for not requesting instruction on defendant's theory of defense	Counsel failed to secure an instruction supporting defense theory	Record shows no arguable merit or prejudice; strategy reasonable	Affirmed — claim rejected
9. Failure to request limiting instruction when introducing evidence of violent character	Counsel should have sought limiting instruction on propensity evidence	No prejudice or error established; counsel not ineffective	Affirmed — claim denied
10. Failure to object to trial court requiring "substantial doubt" for acquittal	Court allegedly required higher standard than reasonable doubt; counsel failed to object	Instruction did not require substantial doubt standard; claim lacks merit	Affirmed — claim rejected

Key Cases Cited

Finley v. Commonwealth, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedures for counsel to withdraw via no‑merit letter)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 815 A.2d 598 (Pa. 2002) (Pennsylvania application of Strickland)
Commonwealth v. Pierce, 786 A.2d 203 (Pa. 2001) (defining test elements for ineffectiveness claims)
Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (procedural guidance on appellate waiver issues)
Commonwealth v. Khalifah, 852 A.2d 1238 (Pa. Super. 2004) (PCRA court discretion to deny evidentiary hearing for frivolous/unsupported claims)
Commonwealth v. Faulk, 21 A.3d 1196 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (PCRA findings supported by certified record)