Com. v. Matthews, J.
Com. v. Matthews, J. No. 1135 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 25, 2017Background
- Appellant Jheri Lamar Matthews was charged with homicide and conspiracy for the March 16, 2005 killing of Keith Watts; co-defendants were Shawn Wilmer and Howard Kelley.
- Commonwealth presented circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy: prior retaliatory shootings, a McDonald’s receipt with Matthews’ fingerprint found in the shooters’ car hours before the murder, and post-shooting statements/behavior by co-defendants suggesting Matthews’ agreement or presence.
- A jury acquitted Matthews of murder but convicted him of conspiracy; he was sentenced to 20–40 years (co-defendants received life sentences).
- Matthews’ direct appeal challenging a continuance denial and sufficiency of evidence was unsuccessful; later PCRA proceedings followed, including a nunc pro tunc appeal to the Supreme Court, and subsequent PCRA petitions and counseled filings.
- In the instant PCRA petition Matthews (pro se) alleged trial counsel was ineffective for (1) not impeaching Commonwealth witness Nathan Walters with a prior inconsistent statement and (2) failing to file a timely severance motion; the PCRA court dismissed the petition and Matthews appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel ineffective for failing to impeach Nathan Walters with prior inconsistent statement | Matthews: counsel should have used Walters’ earlier statement that Matthews “didn’t say much” to impeach Walters and discredit his trial testimony that Matthews nodded in agreement | Commonwealth/PCRA court: counsel reasonably avoided impeaching a witness with an out-of-court statement that would contradict Matthews’ own testimony denying presence; other witnesses also implicated Matthews | Denied — counsel had reasonable basis; no prejudice given extensive circumstantial evidence supporting conspiracy conviction |
| Trial counsel ineffective for failing to timely move for severance | Matthews: counsel failed to timely seek severance, prejudicing him | Commonwealth/PCRA court: severance was denied on the merits; joint trial appropriate because defendants were charged in same series of acts and conspiracy favors joint trials | Denied — claim waived in part and merits fail because joint trial discretion was properly exercised; no ineffectiveness shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lively, 610 A.2d 7 (Pa. 1992) (rules on use of prior inconsistent statements for impeachment/substantive purposes)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 10 A.3d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2010) (presumption that counsel is effective in PCRA ineffective-assistance analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Fulton, 830 A.2d 567 (Pa. 2003) (three-prong test for counsel ineffectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 661 A.2d 352 (Pa. 1995) (PCRA courts may dispose on prejudice prong alone)
- Commonwealth v. Douglas, 645 A.2d 226 (Pa. 1994) (counsel not ineffective if reasonable basis for action; prejudice required)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 811 A.2d 994 (Pa. 2002) (failure to satisfy any prong of ineffectiveness test defeats claim)
- Commonwealth v. Lopez, 739 A.2d 485 (Pa. 1999) (trial court discretion on severance issues)
- Commonwealth v. Cull, 688 A.2d 1191 (Pa. Super. 1997) (joint trials preferred where conspiracy charged)
- Commonwealth v. Quaranibal, 763 A.2d 941 (Pa. Super. 2000) (PCRA dismissal without hearing when claims lack record support)
- Commonwealth v. Tejada, 107 A.3d 788 (Pa. Super. 2015) (procedural waiver rules for issues raised late)