Com. v. Scott, J.
111 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Jan 25, 2017Background
- Appellant James Lorraine Scott was convicted after a July 20, 2015 bench trial of indecent assault and sentenced November 13, 2015 to 5–23 months and 15 years sex-offender registration.
- At trial Scott was represented by Attorney Anthony List; Scott retained new counsel after conviction.
- Immediately before sentencing Scott orally moved for extraordinary relief arguing newly discovered evidence: a diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome, and that trial counsel was ineffective for not (1) presenting that evidence and (2) moving to suppress his statement to police.
- Post-sentence motions (including a new-trial motion based on after-discovered evidence and ineffectiveness claims) were denied; Scott appealed.
- The Superior Court concluded the ineffectiveness claims were improperly raised on direct appeal (no Holmes exception applied) and dismissed them without prejudice to PCRA review; the court also denied the after-discovered-evidence motion because Scott knew of his diagnosis before trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Scott) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress Scott’s police statement based on his Asperger’s diagnosis | Scott: his Asperger’s made the statement involuntary; counsel should have moved to suppress | Trial court/Commonwealth: ineffectiveness claims are generally for PCRA and not properly considered on direct appeal here | Dismissed without prejudice to PCRA review (ineffectiveness claims not considered on direct appeal) |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/recognize Scott’s Asperger’s | Scott: counsel was ineffective for not investigating or knowing about Asperger’s | Trial court/Commonwealth: same procedural defect — claim should be deferred to PCRA review absent exceptions | Dismissed without prejudice to PCRA review |
| Whether Scott’s Asperger’s diagnosis is after-discovered evidence entitling him to a new trial | Scott: diagnosis/newly discovered evidence would likely change verdict | Commonwealth/Trial court: Scott knew of diagnosis and had prior accommodations; evidence was not newly discovered and he failed diligence | Motion for new trial denied (trial court did not abuse discretion) |
| Whether an exception to Holmes permits immediate review (extraordinary circumstances or unitary review) | Scott: short sentence and merits justify immediate review | Commonwealth/Trial court: no record-based extraordinary circumstances; Scott did not knowingly waive PCRA rights for unitary review | No Holmes exception applies; direct-review dismissal of ineffectiveness claims affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (limits immediate review of ineffective-assistance claims; recognizes two narrow exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053 (Pa. 2013) (standards for new trial based on after-discovered evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Burno, 94 A.3d 956 (Pa. 2014) (improperly entertained collateral claims on direct appeal should be dismissed without prejudice to PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (ineffective-assistance claims generally deferred to collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 114 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discussing Holmes limitation on direct review of ineffectiveness claims)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 402 A.2d 1065 (Pa. Super. 1979) (defendant must produce relevant evidence timely)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 323 A.2d 295 (Pa. Super. 1974) (defendant has duty to bring forth relevant evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Bomar, 826 A.2d 831 (Pa. 2003) (discussed in Holmes as contrasting prior precedent about collateral review)