Com. v. Mouzon, D.
1292 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 31, 2018Background
- In Sept. 2006, Mouzon shot Andre King in a Philadelphia bar; King later died and a bystander was wounded. Mouzon fled and was arrested in 2007.
- In April 2009 a jury convicted Mouzon of first‑degree murder, aggravated assault, firearms offenses, and PIC; he received life imprisonment.
- The Superior Court initially vacated the sentence based on excluded evidence, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the judgment, holding the excluded evidence did not support self‑defense. (Commonwealth v. Mouzon)
- Mouzon filed a timely pro se PCRA petition in 2013 alleging trial counsel was ineffective, primarily for failing to advise him to testify and for not seeking a voluntary manslaughter instruction.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing in March 2017; Mouzon appealed and the Superior Court affirmed, concluding claims were undeveloped/waived and lacked merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA court erred by dismissing petition without an evidentiary hearing | Mouzon: counsel was ineffective for failing to strongly advise him to testify; testimony on state of mind could have aided self‑defense / manslaughter theory | Commonwealth/PCRA court: petitioner failed to plead the three prongs of ineffectiveness or to develop the claim with authority; record shows no arguable merit or prejudice | Denied — dismissal affirmed; no hearing required because claims were undeveloped/waived and lacked merit |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not advising Mouzon to testify | Mouzon: his testimony would have shown belief deadly force was necessary and affected jury’s view | Commonwealth: no specific pleading of arguable merit, reasonable basis, or prejudice; claim undeveloped | Denied — waived and meritless under Strickland/PCRA standards |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request voluntary manslaughter jury instruction | Mouzon: counsel should have requested instruction as alternative to murder conviction | Commonwealth: claim undeveloped and, even if developed, lacked merit per PCRA court analysis | Denied — claim waived and without merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Franklin, 990 A.2d 795 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for PCRA dismissals)
- Commonwealth v. Hanible, 30 A.3d 426 (Pa. 2011) (need to show genuine issue of fact to obtain evidentiary hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 177 A.3d 136 (Pa. 2018) (PCRA petitioner must address all three ineffectiveness prongs)
- Commonwealth v. Baumhammers, 92 A.3d 708 (Pa. 2014) (no hearing required if underlying issue is of no arguable merit or no prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Khalifah, 852 A.2d 1238 (Pa. Super. 2004) (review of PCRA denial without hearing requires examining the certified record)
- Commonwealth v. Hart, 911 A.2d 939 (Pa. Super. 2006) (PCRA court may deny without hearing if claim is patently frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 53 A.3d 738 (Pa. 2012) (Supreme Court reversed Superior Court and held excluded evidence did not support self‑defense)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915 (Pa. 2009) (issues not developed with citation to authority are waived)