242 A.3d 416
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- April 12, 2008: Kenneth Wiggins was shot and later died outside the Skyline Restaurant; surveillance recorded the encounter. Appellant Bernard Salmond was the driver of the car from which two passengers (including his brother Quentin) approached the victim; two different caliber guns were fired.
- Police recovered casings, a soda bottle, and the car later was burned at Appellant’s direction. Appellant was convicted by a jury of third‑degree murder and criminal conspiracy and sentenced to 18–36 years.
- Appellant’s direct appeal was affirmed and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review.
- Appellant timely filed a pro se PCRA petition claiming trial‑counsel ineffectiveness (failure to suppress ID, failure to call alibi/character witnesses, failure to request a Kloiber instruction, cumulative error). Counsel later amended to allege failure to call Antoinette Samuels and Leonard Weal and newly discovered/coerced testimony by Robert Bluefort.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the petition after Appellant failed to supply the statutory witness certifications required by 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(d)(1).
- Appellate counsel complied with Turner/Finley procedural requirements and sought permission to withdraw; the Superior Court permitted withdrawal and affirmed denial of PCRA relief.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth / PCRA Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Trial counsel ineffective for failing to investigate/call Antoinette Samuels and Leonard Weal | Samonds: those witnesses would provide exculpatory/alibi testimony | No §9545(d)(1) witness certifications were provided; counsel attempted contact; without certifications testimony is inadmissible | Denied — claim lacks merit and evidentiary support under §9545(d)(1); no hearing required |
| 2. Newly discovered evidence/recantation: Bluefort coerced into testifying | Salmond: Bluefort would now admit he was coerced, undermining case | No §9545(d)(1) certification for Bluefort; counsel attempted contact but could not obtain certification | Denied — procedurally barred for failure to supply required certifications |
| 3. Trial counsel disloyal to defendant (conflict of interest) | Salmond: counsel’s loyalty was to the Commonwealth, not him | Claim was not raised in the PCRA petition below | Waived — not preserved in the petition, so cannot be considered on appeal |
| 4. Conviction against weight of the evidence / trial impropriety based on Bluefort’s bias | Salmond: conviction shocking because case relied on biased testimony | Weight claims and general trial‑error claims are not cognizable on PCRA review | Denied — not cognizable under the PCRA statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw in post‑conviction proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (Turner companion decision on no‑merit appellate briefs)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119 (Pa. 2008) (standards for proving prejudice from failure to call a witness)
- Commonwealth v. Fulton, 830 A.2d 567 (Pa. 2003) (three‑prong ineffective assistance test)
- Commonwealth v. Muzzy, 141 A.3d 509 (Pa. Super. 2016) (summary of Turner/Finley duties for PCRA counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 767 A.2d 576 (Pa. Super. 2001) (failure to provide witness certifications obviates need for an evidentiary hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 876 A.2d 380 (Pa. 2005) (issues not raised in the PCRA petition are waived)