Com. v. Serrano-Torres, J.
Com. v. Serrano-Torres, J. No. 719 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 22, 2017Background
- On April 12, 2012, Serrano-Torres and Josue Figueroa planned a robbery during a drug sale; Serrano-Torres shot Francisco Oquendo‑Nieves in the back and Figueroa took money/drugs.
- Multiple witnesses and admissions linked Serrano-Torres to the robbery and shooting; DNA from a cigarette at the scene matched Serrano‑Torres and Figueroa; recorded statements implicated Serrano‑Torres.
- Serrano‑Torres was arrested, tried, convicted of second‑degree murder, robbery, conspiracy, and carrying an unlicensed firearm, and received a life sentence; direct appeal affirmed and discretionary review was denied.
- Serrano‑Torres filed a pro se PCRA petition; appointed counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and sought to withdraw after reviewing the record and prior counsel files.
- Serrano‑Torres objected, raising additional ineffectiveness claims in reply; the PCRA court independently reviewed the record, granted counsel’s withdrawal, denied the PCRA petition without a hearing, and Serrano‑Torres appealed.
- The Superior Court affirmed: it found PCRA counsel complied with Pitts/Turner/Finley requirements and that Serrano‑Torres’s asserted claims were either meritless, previously litigated, or undeveloped.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA counsel improperly withdrew without addressing all issues Serrano‑Torres wanted raised | Serrano‑Torres argued counsel failed to advance several additional ineffective‑assistance claims raised in his reply | PCRA counsel contends he conducted full record review, addressed pro se issues, and reasonably concluded no meritorious claims existed | Court held counsel complied with Turner/Finley/Pitts; withdrawal and no‑merit letter adequate |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress or redact Figueroa’s statements (Bruton) | Serrano‑Torres argued Figueroa’s confession implicated him and should have been suppressed/redacted | Defense notes Figueroa’s confession as presented did not name Serrano‑Torres; references were non‑specific (“the guy”) | Court held no Bruton violation; no basis for ineffectiveness on suppression/redaction grounds |
| Whether trial counsel ineffectively failed to challenge voluntariness of Serrano‑Torres’s confession due to pre‑Miranda delay | Serrano‑Torres argued length of detention made confession involuntary | Trial counsel had raised the issue on direct appeal and lost | Court held issue previously litigated on direct appeal and is barred from PCRA relitigation |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for jury instruction and severance/pro se denial errors (reasonable doubt definition, malice inference, consolidation, request to proceed pro se) | Serrano‑Torres raised multiple undeveloped claims that counsel failed to object or appeal these rulings | PCRA counsel argues the claims are meritless or undeveloped; record supports malice inference from shooting in back | Court held malice inference instruction was proper; remaining claims are undeveloped or lacked arguable merit; no PCRA relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (Turner/Finley withdrawal requirements clarified)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (standards for counsel withdrawal in collateral proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedures for no‑merit letters in PCRA context)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (Pa. formulation of Strickland test)
- Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 34 (Pa. 2012) (requirements for pleading and proving ineffectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Wharton, 811 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2002) (undeveloped ineffectiveness claims are insufficient)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (co‑defendant confession naming defendant can violate confrontation)
- Commonwealth v. Faurelus, 147 A.3d 905 (Pa. Super. 2016) (malice inference from use of deadly weapon to a vital body part)
- Commonwealth v. Hitcho, 123 A.3d 731 (Pa. 2015) (same: inference of intent from weapon use)