Com. v. Johnson, A., Com. v. Johnson, A. No. 2083 MDA 2016

Antonio M. Johnson participated in an armed assault (Sept. 18, 2011) in which two victims were wounded and his friend/co-shooter Rudolph Mendoza was fatally shot (apparently by Johnson’s gunfire). Johnson was tried and convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy, two counts of attempted homicide, and two counts of aggravated assault.
Johnson gave a videotaped statement to police after receiving Miranda warnings; the tape showed him distraught and denying responsibility. He requested trial counsel file a pretrial motion to suppress the statement; counsel declined.
At trial Johnson invoked his right not to testify; defense presented a self-defense theory and played a redacted version of the videotaped statement to the jury. He was sentenced to life without parole plus a consecutive 20–40 year term.
After direct review and denial by the Supreme Court, Johnson filed a timely pro se PCRA petition raising multiple claims; PCRA counsel withdrew the pro se claims and pursued a single ineffectiveness claim: trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress the videotaped statement.
At the PCRA hearing trial counsel explained his strategy: suppression would be futile because Johnson had received and waived Miranda, and playing the tape would humanize Johnson without exposing him to cross-examination. The PCRA court denied relief; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a pretrial motion to suppress Johnson’s videotaped statement	Johnson: counsel should have moved to suppress the statement, and failure to do so was ineffective assistance	Commonwealth/PCRA court: counsel had reasonable strategic basis—statement was knowingly waived and playing the tape humanized Johnson without subjecting him to testimony	Denied: counsel’s choice had a reasonable basis; ineffectiveness not proved

Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw in collateral proceedings)
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedural framework for no-merit briefs and withdrawal)
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (standard of review for PCRA appeals)
Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601 (Pa. 2015) (three-prong ineffectiveness test and reasonable basis inquiry)
Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Turner/Finley technical compliance and court review duties)
Commonwealth v. Howard, 645 A.2d 1300 (Pa. 1994) (counsel not ineffective for failing to pursue meritless or futile claims)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warnings and waiver principles)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)