Com. v. Jones, N., Com. v. Jones, N. No. 1432 EDA 2016

Background

Naeem Jones was tried for the February 20, 2006 murder of Steven Bartley; a jury convicted him of first‑degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime; he received life without parole.
After direct review was exhausted, Jones filed a PCRA petition raising layered ineffective‑assistance claims and an after‑discovered evidence claim; the PCRA court held evidentiary hearings and denied relief on April 28, 2016.
Key trial facts: witnesses placed Jones outside the bar at or immediately after the shooting; the victim suffered multiple gunshot wounds from at least two weapons; Woods (a witness) told police Jones shot the victim; Jones allegedly made inculpatory statements to a friend, Dickerson.
Defense evidence included Debbie Royster, who testified she and Jones were in the women’s restroom doing drugs during the shooting and were temporarily locked inside, and thus offered alibi‑type testimony.
After‑discovered witness Robert Corbin surfaced in 2015 claiming he saw two other men shoot the victim and did not see Jones; the PCRA court found Corbin neither credible nor reliable.
The PCRA court concluded trial counsel had reasonable bases for decisions (e.g., not requesting an alibi instruction, not objecting to limited drug/arrest‑photo references), found no prejudice, and denied relief; the Superior Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jones)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court)	Held
Trial counsel ineffective for failing to request alibi instruction	Royster provided alibi testimony; omission prejudiced Jones because jury was not instructed on alibi	Counsel reasonably chose not to request alibi instruction because Jones arguably remained on premises and emphasizing weak alibi testimony could harm defense; no reasonable probability of a different outcome	Denied — counsel had a reasonable basis and Jones showed no prejudice
Trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to admission of drug arrest evidence/photo	Photo and testimony about a marijuana arrest were improper bad‑acts/evidence of other crimes under Pa.R.E. 404(b) and prejudiced jury	References were minimal, explained as prior contact with police or used to match clothing; precedent holds photos/arrest contact alone do not imply guilt	Denied — reasonable trial strategy and no prejudice
Trial counsel ineffective for not subpoenaing/verifying Dickerson landline records	Trial counsel should have subpoenaed 2006 landline records to impeach Dickerson’s statement implicating Jones	Verizon response was inconclusive (phone‑number driven); absence of Verizon records is not dispositive; counsel’s omission not shown to be prejudicial	Denied — claim lacked arguable merit and records did not establish prejudice
After‑discovered evidence (Corbin) entitles Jones to new trial	Corbin claimed he saw different shooters and did not see Jones, discovered in 2015, so this evidence would likely change verdict	Court found Corbin’s delay, inconsistent times, failure to identify other known witnesses, and implausible explanations undermined credibility; cumulative record overwhelming against Jones	Denied — Corbin not credible; evidence would not likely produce a different verdict

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 912 A.2d 268 (Pa. 2006) (PCRA standard that counsel's ineffectiveness must undermine truth‑determining process)
Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 894 A.2d 716 (Pa. 2006) (discusses when failure to request alibi instruction can be ineffective assistance)
Commonwealth v. Bennett, 57 A.3d 1185 (Pa. 2012) (prejudice standard and Strickland application in Pennsylvania)
Commonwealth v. D'Amato, 856 A.2d 806 (Pa. 2004) (standards for new trial based on after‑discovered evidence)
Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 596 A.2d 165 (Pa. Super. 1991) (arrest photos/police contact generally do not prove prior convictions or criminal propensity)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 512 A.2d 596 (Pa. 1986) (prior contact with police by itself is not proof of prior criminality)