Com. v. Reed, J., Com. v. Reed, J. No. 1875 MDA 2016

Jerry Allen Reed was convicted by a jury of multiple sexual offenses (rape, incest, sexual assault, attempted IDSI, indecent assault/exposure, unlawful contact with a minor, corruption of minors) involving a victim who was both his daughter and great-niece; DNA confirmed paternity.
Trial court found Reed a sexually violent predator and sentenced him to an aggregate 21 to 50 years' imprisonment. Appellate review and Supreme Court review were denied.
Reed filed a timely pro se PCRA petition; counsel was appointed and later filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter seeking to withdraw. The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and then dismissed the petition; counsel was permitted to withdraw. Reed appealed pro se.
Reed raised ineffectiveness claims: counsel denied him the right to testify, counsel failed to interview or call witnesses (including two witness affidavits attached to the PCRA petition), and counsel failed to obtain a DNA expert to rebut Commonwealth evidence.
The PCRA court found Reed knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to testify at trial and that Reed failed to prove prejudice or that missing witnesses (other than Reed himself) existed, were available, or would have materially aided his defense. The Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Reed)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Counsel)	Held
1. Right to testify	Counsel refused to allow Reed to testify at preliminary hearing and trial	Reed knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived right to testify after colloquy with court and counsel	Waiver valid; no ineffectiveness for denying testimony
2. Failure to interview identified witnesses	Counsel failed to interview witnesses Reed identified who would refute the Commonwealth	Reed did not identify existing, available, willing witnesses apart from general accusations; affidavits insufficient	Claim fails for lack of proof witnesses existed/available and lack of prejudice
3. Failure to call witnesses present at trial	Counsel told witnesses to go home and refused to call willing trial witnesses	Only two affidavits provided; one was Reed’s own narrative (he waived testimony); the other (Tina Ross) did not show availability or material relevance	No relief: testimony would not have materially aided defense; no prejudice shown
4. Failure to obtain a DNA expert rebuttal	Counsel should have retained independent DNA expert to challenge paternity/DNA evidence	Mere failure to obtain expert is not per se ineffective; Reed did not show an available expert who would have advanced his cause or that testimony would have changed result	Claim fails: no showing of available expert testimony or prejudice

Miller v. Commonwealth, 987 A.2d 638 (Pa. 2009) (discusses counsel interference with defendant's right to testify and standard for proving such interference)
Turner v. Commonwealth, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural framework for counsel seeking withdrawal via no-merit letter)
Finley v. Commonwealth, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (procedural framework for counsel's no-merit/withdrawal filings)
Jarosz v. Commonwealth, 152 A.3d 344 (Pa. Super. 2016) (sets out three-part ineffectiveness test: arguable merit, reasonable basis, prejudice)
Johnson v. Commonwealth, 139 A.3d 1257 (Pa. 2016) (standards for ineffectiveness claims based on failure to call witnesses)
Chmiel v. Commonwealth, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (failure to obtain an expert rebuttal witness is not per se ineffective; must show available expert who would help)
Stultz v. Commonwealth, 114 A.3d 865 (Pa. Super. 2015) (defects in preliminary hearing are rendered immaterial after conviction)