Com. v. Saunders, S.
Com. v. Saunders, S. No. 308 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 6, 2017Background
- Saheed O. Saunders was convicted in Philadelphia County; this appeal concerns his pro se PCRA petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for not calling an alibi witness, Sherry Lockett.
- Saunders filed a timely PCRA petition; PCRA counsel filed a Finley/Turner no-merit letter and petition to withdraw; the PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice, Saunders responded, and the court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing.
- At trial, defense counsel told the court he would not call Lockett because she was allegedly uncooperative; Saunders agreed on the record that he did not want to call witnesses.
- In the PCRA petition Saunders certified (per 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(d)(1)) that Lockett would have testified to his whereabouts and provided an alibi.
- PCRA counsel and the PCRA court treated Saunders’ claim as foreclosed by his on-the-record agreement to defense strategy; Saunders instead claimed counsel misrepresented Lockett’s willingness to testify, inducing his agreement.
- The Superior Court held Saunders’ allegation that counsel misrepresented Lockett’s willingness raises credibility issues that require an evidentiary hearing, vacated the dismissal, ordered appointment of new PCRA counsel, and remanded for a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Saunders) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / PCRA counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Saunders stated an arguable ineffective-assistance claim for counsel’s failure to call Lockett | Counsel told Saunders Lockett was uncooperative; Saunders relied on that and agreed not to call her; Lockett would have provided an alibi | Trial record shows Saunders knowingly agreed with counsel’s strategy; thus claim is waived or foreclosed by Paddy line of cases | Court: Arguable claim exists because Saunders alleges counsel lied about Lockett’s willingness; remand for evidentiary hearing to resolve credibility |
| Whether Saunders satisfied witness-certification requirements under §9545(d)(1) | Saunders submitted a signed certification asserting Lockett would testify to his whereabouts | Commonwealth argued Saunders failed to offer adequate proof (claimed no affidavit) | Court: Saunders’ PCRA filing included the required signed certification; certification sufficed to require a hearing if credibility is at issue |
| Whether the PCRA court erred in denying leave to amend the PCRA petition | Saunders sought to amend to add/allege counsel failed to investigate and present alibi witnesses | PCRA court found the proposed amendment restated claims already pled and was therefore futile | Court: Denial not reversible; remand with new counsel allows amendment if necessary and PCRA court may decide scope at hearing |
| Whether new PCRA counsel should be appointed on remand | Saunders timely raised PCRA counsel ineffectiveness in his Rule 907 response and on appeal | Commonwealth/PCRA court had not found preservation or merit of the claim | Court: Saunders preserved claim; PCRA counsel misinterpreted Saunders’ pro se claim; appointment of new counsel ordered on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural standards for counsel withdrawal/no-merit letters)
- Finley v. Commonwealth, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedural standards for appellate counsel’s no-merit/Finely letter)
- Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. 2013) (standard/scope of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Hall, 867 A.2d 619 (Pa. Super. 2005) (requirements for alleging failure to call a witness)
- Commonwealth v. Michaud, 70 A.3d 862 (Pa. Super. 2013) (proving availability and materiality of uncalled witness)
- Commonwealth v. Stewart, 84 A.3d 701 (Pa. Super. 2013) (three-part test for ineffectiveness under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Paddy, 800 A.2d 294 (Pa. 2002) (a defendant who knowingly accepts trial strategy cannot later claim counsel ineffective on that basis)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009) (necessity of credibility findings and evidentiary hearing when testimonial assessment is essential)