Com. v. Marks, D.
172 EDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 24, 2022Background
- David Marks was convicted in Pennsylvania in 1996 of third-degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime for beating a friend to death with a hammer; because of prior New York murder convictions he received mandatory life imprisonment.
- This Court affirmed his judgment of sentence on direct appeal in Commonwealth v. Marks, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- In January 2019 Marks filed a pro se motion for DNA testing that the trial court treated as a second PCRA petition; counsel was appointed, Marks filed pro se amended petitions, and counsel later sought to withdraw.
- New PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and petition to withdraw; the PCRA court granted withdrawal and dismissed Marks’s petition as meritless.
- Marks filed a pro se appeal to the Superior Court; his appellate brief failed to meet Rule-based briefing requirements and lacked developed legal argument or record citation.
- The Superior Court found briefing defects fatal, concluded Marks waived his claims (including an ineffective-assistance-of-PCRA-counsel claim), and affirmed the PCRA court’s dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to file an amended PCRA petition or DNA testing motion | Marks contends counsel should have filed an amended petition/motion for DNA testing | Counsel complied with Turner/Finley procedures and the record/briefing do not support ineffective-assistance claims | Waived for briefing defects; court affirmed dismissal |
| Whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to file an appeal on Marks’s behalf | Marks alleges counsel failed to appeal | Counsel properly filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and petition to withdraw | Waived for briefing defects; court affirmed dismissal |
| Whether the PCRA court erred in dismissing the petition as without merit | (No developed argument presented) | PCRA court concluded petition was meritless after counsel’s no-merit submission | Waived for failure to brief; issue not addressed on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Marks, 704 A.2d 1095 (Pa. Super. 1997) (direct-appeal decision affirming conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Reyes-Rodriguez, 111 A.3d 775 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (articulating three-part PCRA ineffective-assistance test)
- Commonwealth v. Natividad, 938 A.2d 310 (Pa. 2007) (confirming burden to plead/prove ineffective-assistance elements)
- Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appellate briefing must develop arguments and cite record/authorities; failure can result in waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739 (Pa. 2014) (pro se litigants receive no special advantage; courts won’t act as counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Cooley, 444 A.2d 711 (Pa. Super. 1982) (distinguished; involved counsel’s refusal to file a direct appeal and Anders-related withdrawal issues)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures for counsel seeking to withdraw from PCRA representation)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (no-merit letter procedure paired with Turner)