Com. v. Moyer, B.
1947 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 9, 2016Background
- Bryan Moyer was convicted after a 2006 jury trial of numerous sexual offenses involving five young boys who attended the same daycare as his son; he received an aggregate sentence of 19 years 3 months to 46 years.
- Moyer filed a pro se PCRA petition in 2009; counsel initially appointed did not act, new counsel later filed a second amended PCRA petition and a hearing was held in July 2015.
- The PCRA court denied relief in a detailed 19‑page opinion on November 13, 2015; Moyer appealed pro se and the Superior Court affirmed.
- Moyer asserted multiple claims: numerous trial‑counsel ineffectiveness theories (failure to reduce a plea to writing, Rule 600 and 704 issues, not calling experts/witnesses, failing to object to evidence/juror replacement), prosecutorial misconduct, PCRA counsel ineffectiveness (layered claim), and that his mandatory‑minimum sentence under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718 was unlawful post‑Alleyne.
- The courts concluded most claims were meritless or waived, counsel actions had reasonable strategic bases, and Alleyne-based relief did not apply retroactively on collateral review to Moyer’s case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moyer) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel ineffective — failure to reduce a plea to writing | Moyer says DA offered 5–10 years with immunity which was accepted but not reduced to writing; counsel failed to secure/enforce the bargain | Counsel and Commonwealth deny such a 5–10 with immunity offer; trial counsel testified Moyer refused to plead and no enforceable plea existed | Court found no credible evidence of the alleged offer; claim not of arguable merit, so no relief |
| Trial counsel ineffective — Rule 600 / Rule 704 / evidentiary and strategic errors | Moyer contends counsel failed to raise proper speedy‑trial (Rule 600) and sentencing‑delay (Rule 704) claims and made other omissions (e.g., not showing video, not calling experts) | Records and counsel testimony showed continuances were requested/waived, reasonable strategic choices (e.g., not playing prejudicial video), and sentencing delay was for Sex Offender report (good cause) | Court held the claims were meritless or had reasonable strategic bases; no prejudice shown, so ineffectiveness fails |
| Prosecutorial misconduct and evidentiary tampering | Moyer alleges Commonwealth bought food for witnesses/jury, altered/shortened interview videos, and concealed exculpatory evidence | Commonwealth and witnesses deny purchasing food; court found no credible proof of video tampering; many complaints could have been raised on direct appeal | Claims were either waived (not raised on direct appeal), unsupported by record, or conclusory; PCRA relief denied |
| Alleyne / mandatory minimums — retroactivity | Moyer argues § 9718 mandatory minimums invalid after Alleyne, entitling him to resentencing | Commonwealth and courts cite Pennsylvania precedent holding Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral (PCRA) review | Held: Alleyne and Wolfe do not entitle Moyer to relief on collateral review; mandatory minimum challenge denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for appellate review of PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 470 (Pa. 2014) (framework for layered ineffective‑assistance claims)
- Commonwealth v. McGill, 832 A.2d 1014 (Pa. 2003) (three‑prong ineffective assistance test explained)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Riggle, 119 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2015) (distinguishing retroactivity on direct appeal vs collateral review for Alleyne claims)
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 106 A.3d 800 (Pa. Super. 2014) (invalidating § 9718 in light of Alleyne on direct appeal)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (holding facts increasing mandatory penalties must be found by a jury)