Com. v. Martinez, E.
1736 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 24, 2017Background
- Ernesto Martinez was convicted of first-degree murder in 2010 and sentenced to mandatory life; direct appeals were denied up through the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012.
- Martinez filed a pro se PCRA petition in August 2013 raising ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims; counsel was appointed for PCRA proceedings.
- PCRA counsel filed a Finley no‑merit letter and motion to withdraw, initially asserting the PCRA petition was untimely based on an erroneous calculation of when Martinez’s judgment became final.
- Martinez filed pro se responses seeking to amend his PCRA petition with two additional ineffectiveness claims and disputed counsel’s timeliness claim; the PCRA court issued Rule 907 notices and granted continuances but the record lacks clear rulings on the motion to amend.
- PCRA counsel later filed an amended Finley letter conceding the timeliness error but addressing only the original single claim; the PCRA court dismissed the petition on May 15, 2015 and permitted counsel to withdraw.
- The Commonwealth acknowledged in this Court that PCRA counsel’s Finley letter was defective for failing to address two of Martinez’s raised issues; the Superior Court vacated the dismissal and remanded for appointment of new PCRA counsel and further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Martinez's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to defense counsel’s cross-examination of victim Luis Rodriguez using a prior statement | Martinez: Trial counsel should have objected to reading/showing Rodriguez’s out-of-court statement | Commonwealth: (as represented in PCRA filings) PCRA counsel initially concluded the claim lacked merit; on appeal Commonwealth agreed PCRA no‑merit letter was defective | Superior Court did not decide the merits; vacated dismissal and remanded for further proceedings because the Finley letter failed to address all claims |
| 2) Whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to raise trial counsel’s ineffectiveness regarding prosecutor’s questions and officer testimony about the victim | Martinez: PCRA counsel failed to raise these claims | Commonwealth: Conceded that the Finley letter did not address two of Martinez’s three pro se issues and did not oppose remand | Court found procedural deficiencies and ordered remand for appointment of new counsel to address counseled PCRA petition |
| 3) Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion in limine to exclude a .38 caliber revolver | Martinez: Trial counsel should have filed a motion in limine to exclude the revolver as prejudicial | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Not fully addressed because PCRA counsel’s no‑merit letter did not analyze all claims | Court vacated dismissal and remanded for comprehensive review by newly appointed counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedures for appointed counsel filing no‑merit letter and withdrawing)
- Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (standards for counsel withdrawal in post‑conviction proceedings)
- Nischan v. Commonwealth, 928 A.2d 349 (Pa. Super. 2007) (counseled defendant’s pro se post‑sentence filings are a nullity)
- Commonwealth v. Martinez, 40 A.3d 1235 (Pa. 2012) (denial of allowance of appeal affirming prior appellate resolution)