Com. v. Minnis, D.
3062 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 28, 2016Background
- In December 2006 Darryl Minnis and two accomplices robbed Timothy Williams at gunpoint; Minnis was tried and convicted in June 2008 of robbery, conspiracy, firearms offenses, and possession of an instrument of crime.
- Sentenced August 5, 2008 to 6–12 years’ incarceration plus 3 years’ probation; direct appeal affirmed by this Court in 2012 and Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review in 2013.
- Minnis filed a timely pro se PCRA petition in 2013; a counseled amended PCRA petition (2015) alleged multiple instances of trial counsel ineffectiveness.
- The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing on September 22, 2015; Minnis appealed.
- Key claims: (1) counsel failed to object to allegedly improper prosecutorial closing; (2) counsel failed to litigate suppression of a pretrial identification; (3) counsel failed to object to a deadly-weapon sentence enhancement (Alleyne-related); (4) counsel failed to file a post-verdict weight-of-the-evidence motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Minnis) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to object to prosecutor's closing | Prosecutor asked jurors to "put themselves in the victim's shoes," inflaming juror sympathy and bias | Remarks were limited, explanatory about identification and responsive to defense argument; not improper | Waived on 1925(b); meritless in any event — counsel not ineffective for not raising a meritless objection |
| 2. Failure to litigate suppression of pretrial ID | Pretrial photo ID was unnecessarily suggestive and unreliable, requiring suppression | Petitioner did not identify an unduly suggestive procedure; under totality, no arguable merit to a due-process suppression claim | Waived on 1925(b); on merits no arguable claim — counsel not ineffective |
| 3. Failure to object to deadly-weapon enhancement under Alleyne | Enhancement imposed without jury finding of a fact increasing the mandatory minimum, violating Alleyne | Alleyne decided in 2013, after Minnis’s 2008 sentence; Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review and does not apply to discretionary deadly-weapon enhancements | Meritless — counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to predict change in law; Alleyne not retroactive/applicable |
| 4. Failure to file post-verdict weight-of-the-evidence motion | Evidence was contradictory and unreliable; counsel should have preserved weight claim | Weight challenges rest on credibility and are not cognizable on appeal absent extraordinary circumstances; jury resolved credibility after cross-examination | Counsel not ineffective because the underlying claim lacked merit; PCRA dismissal without hearing proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Ragan v. Commonwealth, 923 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for PCRA dismissals)
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009) (three-prong ineffective-assistance test: arguable merit, reasonable basis, prejudice)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (fact increasing mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury; decision not applied retroactively on collateral review here)
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 896 A.2d 1191 (Pa. 2006) (counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless objections)
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, 139 A.3d 1257 (Pa. 2016) (standard for assessing pretrial identification reliability)
- Springer v. Commonwealth, 961 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no absolute right to an evidentiary hearing under the PCRA)