Com. v. Laboy, R.
134 A.3d 104
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- In January 2006 Roberto Laboy and a co-defendant assaulted and stabbed David Kern; Kern died of multiple chest stab wounds. Tina Garcia identified Laboy in a photo array.
- Co-defendant James Hower later told police a third party gave him the murder weapon (wrapped in a bandana) which he threw into a quarry; Hower pleaded guilty to third-degree murder and testified against Laboy.
- Laboy was tried in May 2011, convicted of second-degree murder, conspiracy, aggravated assault, robbery, and related offenses, and sentenced to life plus 10–20 years; direct appeals were denied.
- Laboy filed a timely PCRA petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for (1) advising him not to testify, (2) failing to investigate the alleged location of the knife, and (3) failing to move to remove two jurors who knew courtroom attendees/witnesses.
- PCRA hearings were held; the court credited trial counsel’s testimony that he advised against testimony but would have called Laboy if Laboy insisted, chose not to investigate the quarry because recovery was unlikely and might strengthen the co‑defendant, and did not object to jurors after the court’s voir dire. The PCRA court denied relief and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Laboy's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Counsel's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Counsel prevented Laboy from testifying | Laboy says he asked to testify and counsel refused, denying his right to speak to the jury | Counsel advised it was unwise due to cross‑examination risk; counsel would have called him if he specifically insisted | No ineffectiveness: counsel advised against testifying reasonably; record shows no categorical refusal |
| 2. Failure to investigate quarry/knife | Laboy argues counsel should have searched for knife; recovery could undermine co‑defendant or corroborate defense | Counsel tested strategy: recovery unlikely after years and might corroborate co‑defendant; leaving absence unexplained favored defense by sowing doubt | No ineffectiveness: counsel had a reasonable strategic basis and Laboy showed only speculative benefit |
| 3. Failure to move to remove two jurors | Laboy requested removal when jurors recognized courtroom persons/witness; counsel failed to act | The court questioned jurors; both said they could be impartial; counsel saw no need to challenge or object | No ineffectiveness: jurors were vetted by the court and Laboy failed to show prejudice or partiality |
| 4. Additional claims raised on appeal (new issues) | Laboy sought to add four new ineffectiveness claims after appeal notice | Appellate counsel raised them for the first time on appeal | Waived: claims not presented to the PCRA court first and thus cannot be raised on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 110 A.3d 1000 (Pa. Super. 2015) (PCRA ineffective assistance standard and analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Charleston, 94 A.3d 1012 (Pa. Super. 2014) (counsel strategy has reasonable basis; avoid hindsight)
- Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2014) (claims not raised in PCRA court are waived on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Bedell, 954 A.2d 1209 (Pa. Super. 2008) (PCRA claims must be presented to PCRA court or they are waived)