Com. v. Johnson, R.
3762 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 14, 2016Background
- On Nov. 13, 2009 Raheem Johnson shot Legrand Peterkin outside a Philadelphia bar; Peterkin later died of multiple gunshot wounds including a fatal shot to his back.
- Eyewitnesses (notably Angelica Swint and Christopher Marshall) testified that Peterkin swung at Johnson, missed, and Johnson then produced a handgun, chased Peterkin and fired multiple shots while Peterkin fled; Johnson fled the scene and was later identified by police.
- A jury convicted Johnson of third-degree murder and a firearms violation on Oct. 6, 2011; he was sentenced Jan. 20, 2012 to 20–40 years for murder (concurrent firearms term). The Superior Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Johnson filed a timely PCRA petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel (trial and appellate) on multiple grounds and challenged his sentence and the presentence report; the PCRA court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing and this appeal followed.
- The trial court reviewed the record, sentencing materials, and heard sentencing allocution and victim-impact/exculpatory evidence before imposing a guidelines sentence under the Deadly Weapon enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to request "heat of passion" voluntary manslaughter instruction | Trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a provocation/heat-of-passion charge | Record lacks serious provocation; a single missed punch is legally insufficient to support heat-of-passion instruction | Denied — no arguable merit; counsel not ineffective |
| 2. Appellate counsel ineffective for not pursuing imperfect self-defense instruction on appeal | Appellate counsel failed to properly argue trial court’s refusal to give imperfect self-defense manslaughter instruction | No evidentiary basis for self-defense or imperfect self-defense; trial court correctly ruled as matter of law | Denied — underlying claim lacked merit; counsel not ineffective |
| 3. Failure to request "corrupt source" (accomplice) jury instruction re: Swint | Trial counsel should have secured instruction treating Swint as a potentially "polluted" accomplice witness | No evidence Swint was an accomplice or aided the offense; at most she was present and gave information | Denied — no factual basis for accomplice instruction; counsel not ineffective |
| 4. Failure to object to presentence report / appellate counsel ineffective for not raising excessiveness of sentence | PSI contained misleading arrest info; sentence was excessive and court was misled | Court considered PSI, mental health report, letters, allocution, and sentencing guidelines; sentence was within statutory/guideline range under Deadly Weapon enhancement | Denied — sentence within guidelines and individualized; no prejudice shown; counsel not ineffective |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 10 A.3d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Jordan, 772 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 2001) (discretion to decline evidentiary hearing when petition is patently frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Wah, 42 A.3d 335 (Pa. Super. 2012) (PCRA hearing and review principles)
- Commonwealth v. Fulton, 830 A.2d 567 (Pa. 2003) (three-part ineffectiveness test)
- Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 82 A.3d 943 (Pa. 2013) (standards for heat-of-passion provocation instruction)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 53 A.3d 738 (Pa. 2012) (elements required to place self-defense in issue)
- Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35 (Pa. 2012) (when accomplice/corrupt-source instruction is warranted)
- Commonwealth v. Collins, 957 A.2d 237 (Pa. 2008) (accomplice instruction guidance)