Com. v. Kane, T.
741 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Todd Angel Kane broke into his ex-girlfriend’s home, causing about $2,840 in property damage; a jury convicted him of burglary, criminal trespass, and criminal mischief.
- On January 17, 2013, Kane was sentenced to an aggregate term of 29 to 72 months’ imprisonment (burglary sentence), with a concurrent sentence for trespass; criminal mischief merged for sentencing.
- Kane filed timely post-trial motions, appealed, and this Court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- Kane filed a pro se PCRA petition in October 2015; counsel was appointed, then filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and moved to withdraw.
- After a PCRA hearing, the trial court denied relief and granted counsel’s withdrawal; Kane appealed pro se, raising sufficiency/weight, suppression, sentencing, and various ineffective-assistance and Miranda-related claims.
- The Superior Court concluded all claims on appeal were either previously litigated on direct appeal or waived for PCRA purposes and affirmed the denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Kane’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/weight of evidence and restitution amount | Convictions unsupported by evidence; restitution excessive/illegal | Issues were litigated on direct appeal and rejected | Previously litigated; claim barred under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(a)(2); PCRA relief denied |
| Denial of pretrial suppression motion and sentence modification | Trial court erred in denying suppression and modification | These issues could have been raised on direct appeal and were not | Waived under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b); PCRA relief denied |
| Specificity of criminal information (intent allegation) | Information failed to specify the intended crime during burglary | Could have been raised on direct appeal; therefore waived | Waived for PCRA purposes; relief denied |
| Ineffective assistance, Miranda violation, fabricated evidence | Trial counsel ineffective; Miranda violated; evidence fabricated | Claims were not raised in the PCRA petition (and some could have been raised earlier) | Waived for failing to include in PCRA petition; some issues also previously litigated; PCRA relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Pennsylvania, 141 A.3d 1277 (Pa. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA order appeals)
- Baumhammers v. Commonwealth, 92 A.3d 708 (Pa. 2014) (claims not included in PCRA petition are waived and cannot be salvaged by Rule 1925(b) statement)
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural standards for counsel seeking withdrawal in post-conviction representation)
- Finley v. Commonwealth, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedural standards for counsel seeking withdrawal in post-conviction representation)
- Grove v. Commonwealth, 170 A.3d 1127 (Pa. Super. 2017) (appellate court may affirm on any basis supported by the record)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (right to warnings before custodial interrogation)