Com. v. King, C.
2021 Pa. Super. 162
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2021Background
- On March 23, 2018 police stopped Colin King for speeding and discovered his license was suspended; his vehicle blocked a driveway and could not be moved by anyone present.
- Officers ordered the vehicle to be towed pursuant to department practice; an inventory search disclosed a marijuana grinder, a small bag of marijuana on King, and a loaded .40 caliber pistol in the center console.
- King elected a non-jury (bench) trial after a pretrial colloquy in which defense counsel warned that voir dire cannot guarantee disclosure of juror prejudice; the court also advised King regarding jury impartiality safeguards.
- King was convicted after a bench trial and sentenced to an aggregate term of 4–8 years plus probation. He did not seek allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court.
- King filed a timely PCRA petition asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel for (1) advising a bench trial rather than a jury trial based on potential racial bias in Schuylkill County juries, and (2) failing to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding (a) King knowingly and voluntarily chose a bench trial after adequate advisals, and (b) the warrantless inventory search was lawful (or the firearm would inevitably have been discovered), so appeal of suppression would have been meritless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for advising a bench trial instead of a jury trial due to alleged racial bias in the county jury pool | King: Counsel told me 12 white jurors would convict me because of my race, so a bench trial was necessary; jury trial would have improved chance of acquittal | Burke/Commonwealth: Counsel warned only that voir dire cannot guarantee disclosure of hidden bias and recommended accepting a plea or bench trial as a strategic choice; the court similarly advised King | Denied — court credited counsel and the record; King made a knowing, voluntary decision after advisals; claim waived for lack of developed argument and fails prongs of ineffectiveness test |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal denial of suppression of evidence from the warrantless vehicle search | King: Towing was unnecessary; officers could have moved the car to a nearby lot so impoundment/inventory was improper and suppression should have been pursued on appeal | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Vehicle blocked a commercial driveway, no one could timely move it, department policy forbids officers driving private vehicles; impoundment and inventory search were lawful; alternatively, inevitable discovery doctrine applies | Denied — impoundment and inventory search were lawful under community caretaking/vehicle code; even if initial search was imperfect, evidence would have been inevitably discovered during lawful inventory; appeal would have been meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hennigan, 753 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2000) (explains purposes and scope of inventory searches and police caretaking functions)
- Commonwealth v. Lagenella, 83 A.3d 94 (Pa. 2013) (inventory-search reasonableness test: lawful impoundment and reasonable procedures are required)
- Commonwealth v. Bailey, 986 A.2d 860 (Pa. Super. 2009) (articulates the inevitable discovery doctrine for admitting evidence obtained after initial illegality)
- Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033 (Pa. Super. 2019) (PCRA standard of review and ineffective-assistance framework)
- Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2015) (presumption that counsel rendered effective assistance)
- Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless claim)