Com. v. Johnson, R.
Com. v. Johnson, R. No. 2893 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 11, 2017Background
- Randy Johnson was convicted by jury (Feb 1, 2012) of third-degree murder, PIC, and related firearms offenses; sentenced to an aggregate 15–30 years' imprisonment.
- Key evidence: two eyewitnesses (Christopher Benene and Jermaine Smith) who had prior acquaintance with Johnson and testified they were scared to identify him earlier; two child witnesses (K.M.A., age 14; J.A., age 12) also testified; fingerprint evidence (flashlight, car hood) tied Johnson to a vehicle at the scene.
- Johnson filed a timely pro se PCRA petition (Dec 2, 2013). Counsel was appointed, then submitted a Turner/Finley (no‑merit) letter and sought leave to withdraw. The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and ultimately dismissed the petition and permitted counsel to withdraw (July 17, 2015).
- Johnson appealed pro se, raising (1) that the PCRA court erred in adopting PCRA counsel’s no‑merit assessment and (2) layered ineffective‑assistance claims (trial counsel and PCRA counsel ineffective).
- The PCRA court conducted an independent review and rejected Johnson’s claims as meritless; the Superior Court affirmed the dismissal and counsel’s withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Johnson's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Trial counsel ineffective for not moving to exclude testimony that Johnson was a threat to witnesses | Counsel should have moved in limine or objected because such testimony improperly suggested propensity | Testimony about fear was relevant to explain witnesses’ delayed or inconsistent statements (admissible to show effect of fear) | Denied — no merit; testimony admissible |
| 2. Trial counsel ineffective for failing to request Kloiber identification instruction | Kloiber warranted because witnesses were impaired, equivocal, or had trouble identifying shooter | Both witnesses knew Johnson before shooting, made out‑of‑court IDs, and circumstances did not trigger Kloiber concerns | Denied — Kloiber not required |
| 3. Trial counsel ineffective for not requesting competency hearings for child witnesses | J.A. (12) and K.M.A. (14) had inconsistencies indicating possible incompetence | K.M.A. (14) presumed competent; J.A. (12) displayed ability to understand and answer questions—any colloquy omission did not prejudice defendant | Denied — no prejudice; competency sufficient |
| 4. Trial/PCRA counsel ineffective for failing to object to prosecutorial comments and for PCRA counsel filing a no‑merit letter | ADA vouched for child witnesses; PCRA counsel’s Turner/Finley letter improperly abandoned claims | Prosecutor responded to defense arguments and did not vouch based on outside knowledge; PCRA counsel reviewed record, cited reasons for rejecting claims, and court independently reviewed | Denied — comments were proper response; Turner/Finley process satisfied; PCRA counsel not ineffective |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (requires independent review before PCRA counsel withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (Finley/Turner no‑merit procedure described)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (three‑part ineffective assistance test restated)
- Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282 (Pa. 2010) (Kloiber instruction guidance on eyewitness ID)
- Commonwealth v. Harvey, 812 A.2d 1190 (Pa. 2002) (competency of child witnesses; trial court observations can cure colloquy omission)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause principles)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic reports as testimonial under Crawford)