Com. v. McCoy, P.
Com. v. McCoy, P. No. 2115 EDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Feb 28, 2017Background
- Phillip McCoy was convicted by a jury of attempted murder, aggravated assault, carrying a firearm without a license (18 Pa.C.S. § 6106), and possessing an instrument of crime; sentenced to concurrent terms (15–30 years on attempted murder).
- At trial the victim (Carrion) testified McCoy argued with him inside a club, was ejected, then returned outside, shouted threats, and Carrion was shot in the back; Carrion and an off‑duty officer identified McCoy in a photo array. Ballistics recovered were .40 caliber casings; McCoy previously purchased .40 caliber firearms.
- McCoy filed a timely PCRA petition alleging multiple instances of trial/appellate counsel ineffectiveness (failure to investigate/call witnesses, failure to object to prosecutor remarks, inadequate post‑sentence motions re: illegal sentence/credit) and ineffective PCRA counsel.
- PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter stating McCoy failed to identify factual/alibi witnesses or specify prosecutorial remarks; counsel concluded the claims lacked merit.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing; the Superior Court affirmed, agreeing the record refuted McCoy’s claims or that McCoy failed to proffer necessary factual evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel ineffective for failing to investigate/call alibi/fact witnesses | McCoy: counsel did not contact or call key witnesses who would exonerate him | PCRA/State: McCoy never identified who the witnesses were, whether they existed/available/willing, nor proffered their expected testimony | Held: No hearing; claim fails—McCoy did not satisfy Thomas factors or proffer evidence showing prejudice |
| Trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to prosecutor's closing remarks / prosecutorial misconduct | McCoy: prosecutor made prejudicial statements; counsel failed to object or raise on post‑trial motion | PCRA/State: McCoy did not identify any specific improper remark in the PCRA court record; independent review found no misconduct | Held: Waived/meritless; no hearing required; counsel not ineffective |
| Trial/appellate counsel ineffective for not raising post‑sentence motions or illegal‑sentence challenge (Valentine/Alleyne issue) | McCoy: sentence relied on jury finding of serious bodily injury; counsel should have raised illegal sentence under Valentine | PCRA/State: Sentences were within statutory limits and guideline ranges; no mandatory minimums imposed; Valentine inapplicable | Held: Meritless; sentencing court properly considered PSI; no ineffectiveness shown |
| PCRA counsel ineffective for failing to communicate/investigate and for not pursuing underlying claims | McCoy: PCRA counsel did not adequately communicate, failed to amend or develop claims | PCRA/State: Layered ineffectiveness requires underlying claims to have merit; underlying claims were meritless or unsupported, so PCRA counsel had no duty to press them further | Held: Denied—layered claim fails because underlying claims lack merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Paddy, 15 A.3d 431 (Pa. 2011) (PCRA court may dismiss without hearing when no genuine issue of material fact exists)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 811 A.2d 994 (Pa. Super. 2002) (PCRA evidentiary hearing not a fishing expedition)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedure for PCRA counsel withdrawal/no‑merit letters)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (Turner/Finley procedure explained)
- Commonwealth v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa. Super. 2014) (addresses jury fact‑finding and mandatory minimum sentencing post‑Alleyne)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (jury must find facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences)
- Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (ineffective assistance test elements)