Com. v. Lackey, A.
1470 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Sep 21, 2017Background
- Aaron B. Lackey was convicted by a jury of first‑degree murder and carrying a firearm without a license after a 2012 trial; he admitted shooting the victim but claimed self‑defense. He received life without parole and concurrent firearms incarceration; fines were later adjusted on appeal.
- Lackey filed a pro se PCRA petition in December 2014; counsel William Shreve filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and sought to withdraw. The PCRA court granted withdrawal, provided Rule 907 notice, and dismissed the petition on June 23, 2016. Lackey appealed.
- On appeal Lackey raised multiple claims alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to meaningfully test the Commonwealth’s case, inadequate cross‑examination, failure to object to prosecutorial misconduct), Brady violations (alleged destruction/withholding of clothing evidence), incomplete trial transcripts affecting appellate review, and prosecutorial failure to correct false testimony.
- The PCRA and Superior Court applied the three‑part ineffectiveness test (arguable merit, no reasonable basis, prejudice) rather than the Cronic standard because Lackey’s allegations did not claim a complete denial of counsel.
- The courts found Lackey’s claims largely conclusory: he admitted shooting the victim (undermining prejudice arguments), failed to show suppressed evidence was exculpatory or prejudicial, and did not identify meritorious, unreviewable claims attributable to missing transcript portions. Several claims were also waived for inadequate briefing or omission from the statement of questions involved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lackey) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel failed to subject the case to meaningful adversarial testing | Counsel did not adequately impeach or test witnesses, challenge provenance/control of crime scene, or probe ATF handling of clothing | Counsel’s choices were strategic; Lackey’s admissions and the record show no reasonable probability of a different outcome | Denied — claim lacks merit; no prejudice shown |
| Failure to object to prosecutorial misconduct / use of false testimony | Prosecutor knowingly presented testimony (e.g., Chism) inconsistent with phone records and other evidence and failed to correct it | No showing that testimony was known false; credibility disputes are for the jury; no evidence of prosecutorial knowing use of false evidence | Denied — claim lacks merit; credibility issues not proven false evidence |
| Inadequate cross‑examination of key witnesses (Chism, Detective O’Connor, Siam Yeiser) | Counsel failed to impeach witnesses with phone records, prior statements, or inconsistencies that would support self‑defense and rebut conspiracy theory | Cross‑examination occurred in part; even absent additional impeachment, Lackey admitted shooting the victim so no prejudice shown | Denied — claim lacks merit; no reasonable probability of different verdict |
| Brady violation / destruction or withholding of clothing evidence | Clothing seized by ATF was not tested and was allegedly destroyed; this evidence would have been exculpatory or impeaching | Lackey did not show the clothing was favorable/exculpatory or explain resulting prejudice | Denied — claim fails for lack of proof that evidence was favorable or that prejudice ensued |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (Sixth Amendment standard recognizing limited circumstances where prejudice need not be shown because counsel was effectively absent)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (presumption of counsel effectiveness; three‑part ineffectiveness test)
- Commonwealth v. Ligons, 971 A.2d 1125 (Pa. 2009) (defendant bears burden to prove counsel ineffective)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecutor must disclose favorable exculpatory or impeaching evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 720 A.2d 693 (Pa. 1998) (defendant entitled to full transcript or equivalent for meaningful appellate review; must show a potentially meritorious challenge that cannot be reviewed without it)
- Commonwealth v. Marinelli, 910 A.2d 672 (Pa. 2006) (applying Albrecht standard; incomplete transcript relief requires a potentially meritorious issue unreviewable due to the gap)
- Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2015) (no deficient performance where petitioner fails to show specific prejudice from counsel’s alleged omissions)