Com. v. Maxwell, T.
Com. v. Maxwell, T. No. 1716 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 28, 2017Background
- Tyreek Maxwell was convicted by a jury of two counts of first‑degree robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, possession of an instrument of crime, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person; he received 8.5 to 20 years' imprisonment.
- Surveillance stills were circulated in media; police developed Maxwell as a suspect from tips and compiled a photo array; two victims identified Maxwell from that array and again at trial.
- Maxwell filed a timely PCRA petition raising multiple claims: unduly suggestive photo array, Confrontation Clause violations (challenge to source of tips), ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel (including failure to present alibi witnesses, failure to challenge weight of the evidence/actual innocence), denial of discovery of exhibits D2/D3, trial court error in admitting other‑acts evidence and jury instruction on change of appearance, and an illegal sentence claim.
- The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing (limited to the alibi claim), denied relief on all claims, and explained that many issues were either previously litigated on direct appeal, waived for failure to raise on direct appeal or were meritless.
- The court found trial counsel had a reasonable strategic basis for not calling proposed alibi witnesses (their accounts were conflicting and weak), and that police testimony about tips was offered to explain investigatory steps, not for the truth of the tips.
- This appeal affirms the PCRA court: earlier direct‑appeal disposition bars relitigation of the photo‑array claim; other claims are waived, lack merit, or fail under ineffective‑assistance standards.
Issues
| Issue | Maxwell's Argument | Commonwealth/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Photo array was unduly suggestive | Array and media‑generated tip process tainted identifications | Claim already litigated and rejected on direct appeal; not cognizable on PCRA | Denied — claim precluded as previously litigated |
| Confrontation Clause / source of tips | Counsel ineffective for not investigating source of tips that led to array; violated right to confront accusers | Police statements about tips were used to explain investigative course, not offered for truth; discovering source would have produced more inculpatory ID evidence | Denied — underlying claim lacks merit; any objection would have been meritless and no prejudice shown |
| Failure to call alibi witnesses (ineffective assistance) | Trial counsel failed to present alibi witnesses who would show innocence | Counsel investigated witnesses; their accounts conflicted, lacked specifics, and could have undermined defense; counsel reasonably pursued misidentification strategy | Denied — PCRA court found counsel’s strategy reasonable after hearing |
| Denial of exhibits D2/D3 (due process / discovery) | D2/D3 are exculpatory pretrial lineup forms; denial prevented proper PCRA pleading | Forms were not admitted into evidence; contents were elicited at trial; PCRA discovery requires showing of exceptional circumstances | Denied — no exceptional circumstances; no due process violation |
| Other‑acts evidence & jury instruction on change of appearance | Trial court erred in admitting other acts and instructing jury about changed appearance | Issues could have been raised on direct appeal but were not; therefore waived | Denied — waived for failure to raise on direct appeal |
| Actual innocence / weight of evidence & appellate counsel ineffective | Appellate counsel should have raised weight/actual innocence based on photographic discrepancies | Weight claim was not preserved in a post‑sentence motion; evidence (two victim IDs) was compelling; any weight claim would have failed | Denied — waived or meritless; appellate counsel cannot be ineffective for not raising a waived or meritless claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (sentencing fact that increases mandatory minimum must be found by jury)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 987 A.2d 638 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania standard applying Strickland elements)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (establishes burden and framework for ineffectiveness claims)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (weight‑of‑the‑evidence claims must be preserved and appellate counsel not ineffective for failing to raise waived claims)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 797 A.2d 232 (Pa. 2001) (PCRA waiver where issues could have been raised earlier)