Com. v. Kenney, S.
3529 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2016Background
- In March 2009 Kenney and an accomplice entered Niles Elo’s home at gunpoint; three victims were shot; ballistics tied casings to a gun recovered from a rental van bearing Kenney’s fingerprint.
- In a non-jury trial (March 24, 2010) Kenney was convicted of multiple offenses including attempted murder and conspiracy; sentence: aggregate 20–40 years imprisonment plus 10 years reporting probation.
- On direct appeal Kenney challenged suppression, admission of a preliminary-hearing statement, and sufficiency of the evidence; the Superior Court deemed the sufficiency claim waived because the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement was vague.
- Kenney filed a timely pro se PCRA petition alleging appellate counsel was ineffective for the defective 1925(b) statement and later raised alleged undisclosed witness bias; PCRA court dismissed the petition as meritless.
- On PCRA appeal the Superior Court affirmed denial of reinstatement of direct-appeal rights (ineffective-assistance claim), but found the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences for attempted murder and conspiracy regarding the same victim, vacated the judgment of sentence, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for filing a vague Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement that waived a sufficiency claim | Kenney: counsel’s defective 1925(b) statement caused waiver of a meritorious sufficiency challenge (mens rea for attempted murder), entitling him to reinstated appeal rights nunc pro tunc | Commonwealth/PCRA court: counsel is presumed effective; Kenney failed to show deficient performance or prejudice; trial court’s detailed sufficiency analysis shows evidence supported convictions | PCRA court and Superior Court: ineffective-assistance claim lacks merit; denial of reinstatement affirmed |
| Whether attempted murder and conspiracy merged for sentencing so consecutive sentences were illegal | Kenney: sentencing for both offenses related to the same underlying crime violated 18 Pa.C.S. § 906 and rendered consecutive sentences improper | Commonwealth: conceded that consecutive sentences for attempt and conspiracy with respect to the same crime were erroneous | Superior Court: trial court erred; vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standards for PCRA review)
- Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912 (Pa. Super. 2010) (legality-of-sentence challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Edrington, 780 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. 2001) (PCRA jurisdiction to address certain claims sua sponte)
- Commonwealth v. Barton-Martin, 5 A.3d 363 (Pa. Super. 2010) (vacating sentence may require resentencing when overall scheme is disrupted)
- Commonwealth v. Breakiron, 781 A.2d 94 (Pa. 2001) (standards governing appellate review of PCRA determinations)