Com. v. Ramos, W.
426 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 27, 2017Background
- In 1999 Wilfredo Ramos was convicted of first-degree murder for the October 11, 1998 shooting of James “Jazzie” Crawford during a drug transaction; jury also convicted him of robbery and related offenses and imposed death (later vacated; resentenced to life).
- Key eyewitness Jeanine Davis testified she saw Ramos shoot Crawford and identified him from a photographic array; two other witnesses (Kennedy and Cruz) gave statements consistent with Ramos’s description but did not testify at trial.
- Ramos gave a police statement admitting presence at the scene but blaming co-defendant Michael Centeno for the shooting; Centeno was later charged.
- Post-conviction (PCRA) litigation raised multiple claims: flawed accomplice-liability jury charge (Huffman-type), ineffective assistance (trial and appellate) for failures to investigate/call witnesses and to seek discovery, Brady and Confrontation Clause challenges (statements read via detective), voluntariness of Ramos’s statement given low IQ, improper “other crimes” evidence (drug dealing), missing voir dire transcripts, and denied discovery requests.
- The PCRA court denied relief (except vacating the death sentence earlier by agreement for penalty-phase IAC), concluding most claims lacked merit or prejudice; Superior Court affirmed on review.
Issues
| Issue | Ramos’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury charge on shared specific intent (Huffman) | Jury instruction permitted conviction as accomplice without proving accomplice’s specific intent to kill; requires new trial | Charge read as whole properly explained accomplice liability and specific intent; jury found Ramos was the principal | Charge valid when read in entirety; Huffman inapplicable because jury found Ramos was principal; no relief |
| IAC for failing to investigate/call witnesses (Kennedy; photo array) | Counsel failed to interview/call Kennedy, inspect photo array, or investigate leads; prejudice from withheld/impeaching evidence | Kennedy’s PCRA testimony was not credible/recantation; no arguable merit; photo-array challenge speculative and not unduly suggestive | PCRA court credited credibility findings; counsel not ineffective; no prejudice shown |
| Confrontation / admission of out-of-court statements (detective read statements) | Detective’s reading of Kennedy/Cruz/Centeno statements violated Crawford; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Statements were not formalized testimonial material used without confrontation; even if error, it was harmless given record | Assuming arguable merit, counsel’s failure to object was harmless; no prejudice shown |
| Suppression of Ramos’s statement (mental incapacity) | Ramos’s intellectual disability and interpreter issues rendered his statement involuntary; counsel ineffective for not moving to suppress | Totality of circumstances show statement was knowing and voluntary; Ramos communicated coherently; motion would have failed | Trial record supports voluntariness; counsel reasonably relied on statement for defense strategy; IAC claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ramos, 827 A.2d 1195 (Pa. 2003) (direct-appeal decision describing trial record and sufficiency of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Huffman, 638 A.2d 961 (Pa. 1994) (warning on accomplice liability charge requiring proof of accomplice’s specific intent for first-degree murder)
- Commonwealth v. Daniels, 963 A.2d 409 (Pa. 2009) (approving jury charge language when read in totality concerning shared specific intent)
- Commonwealth v. Thompson, 674 A.2d 217 (Pa. 1996) (upholding charge that properly defined accomplice liability alongside specific intent)
- Commonwealth v. Wayne, 720 A.2d 456 (Pa. 1998) (invalidating jury instruction that allowed conviction without shared specific intent)
- Pierce v. Commonwealth, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (standards for ineffective assistance of counsel in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 47 A.3d 63 (Pa. 2012) (ineffectiveness claim lacks merit where underlying claim is meritless; cumulative-error principles)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial statements and Confrontation Clause rule)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (primary-purpose test distinguishing testimonial from non-testimonial statements)
- Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2015) (elements of Brady test)
- Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595 (Pa. 2013) (limits on PCRA discovery; good-cause standard)