Com. v. Reed, A.
Com. v. Reed, A. No. 1708 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 22, 2017Background
- On June 2, 2011 an undercover buy occurred: an unidentified man (initially reported as “Juan Doe”) handed an item to Charles Holloway, who then gave crack cocaine to an undercover officer. Detectives surveilled but lost sight of the courier.
- On August 19, 2011 Detectives Mong and Saul encountered Alphonso Reed and, after identifying him, asked for ID and requested consent to search; Reed consented and police found 13 bags of crack, phones, and money; Reed was arrested and later charged for that possession and for the June 2 sale.
- Pretrial, Reed moved to suppress evidence from the August 19 search; the trial court granted suppression (finding consent was involuntary) and charges from that encounter were dismissed; Reed was tried and convicted at a bench trial for the June 2 drug transaction.
- Reed appealed unsuccessfully; later he filed a PCRA petition alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to preserve weight-of-evidence claim, failure to appeal suppression ruling as to stop, failure to object to a mandatory-minimum school-zone enhancement under Alleyne, stipulation to lab report, and failure to call Detective Saul to impeach ID).
- The PCRA court denied relief except it had earlier reinstated certain rights (later reversed); on appeal the Superior Court affirmed most rulings but held the Alleyne-based challenge to the school-zone mandatory minimum required relief: vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Reed's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Trial counsel ineffective for not preserving weight-of-evidence claim | Counsel should have filed post-sentence motion to preserve weight claim; trial judge’s verdict was against the evidence | Counsel reasonably chose not to pursue a weight claim in a bench trial because the judge, as factfinder, would be unlikely to reverse himself | Denied — counsel had a reasonable strategic basis; no prejudice shown |
| 2) Trial counsel ineffective for not appealing partial denial of suppression re: stop | The court suppressed only search consent; counsel should have appealed lawfulness of the stop to suppress identity and thus all evidence | Defendant got suppression of search and dismissal of those charges; no standing to appeal a ruling that granted relief; identity itself is not suppressible | Denied — no arguable merit and no standing; identity not suppressible |
| 3) Trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to imposition of school-zone mandatory minimum (Alleyne issue) | Mandatory minimum under 18 Pa.C.S. §6317 increased penalty and required factfinding beyond a reasonable doubt per Alleyne | The sentencing court used a stipulation/preponderance finding at sentencing | Granted relief — Alleyne applies; stipulation/preponderance at sentencing insufficient; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing |
| 4) Trial counsel ineffective for stipulating to lab report | Stipulation denied opportunity to confront analyst; counsel should have objected | Counsel strategically stipulated because Reed’s defense was misidentification/alibi; lab result irrelevant and calling analyst would have weakened defense | Denied — reasonable tactic and no prejudice |
| 5) Trial counsel ineffective for not calling Detective Saul to impeach ID discrepancies | Saul could impeach officers’ identification and show reports initially described courier as Hispanic | Trial already had testimony explaining discrepancies; Detective Mong and Sgt. Hopkins provided independent identification; calling Saul wouldn’t likely change outcome | Denied — no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (mandatory-minimum facts that increase penalty must be found beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Cousar, 154 A.3d 287 (Pa. 2017) (standards for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (trial court’s discretion on weight-of-evidence new-trial rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Morales, 91 A.3d 80 (Pa. 2014) (weight-of-evidence standard—verdict so contrary to evidence it shocks one’s sense of justice)
- Commonwealth v. Fennell, 105 A.3d 13 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (defendant stipulation at trial/sentencing does not satisfy Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 131 A.3d 54 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (Alleyne claim preserved in timely PCRA warrants resentencing)