Com. v. Shrieves, J.
576 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 3, 2018Background
- On January 1, 2013, Officer Cole responded to Munoz-Brown’s medical emergency at Shrieves’ home and collected her information from Shrieves as EMTs treated her.
- Shrieves retrieved Munoz-Brown’s medication bottles and a large bag of crack cocaine from a bedroom cabinet and a nightstand, while Officer Cole stood nearby.
- The police later searched the residence with consent and located a firearm in a drawer.
- Shrieves moved to suppress the physical evidence seized from his home, which the trial court denied after a suppression hearing.
- Shrieves was convicted of possession with intent to deliver cocaine and drug paraphernalia, and separately of a firearm–related offense after severance; his direct appeal was denied.
- Shrieves filed a PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance for failing to call EMTs Stum and Dunn at the suppression hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for not calling EMT witnesses | Shrieves argues EMTs’ testimony would negate emergency aid exception | Commonwealth contends EMTs’ testimony would not alter suppression ruling and counsel had strategic basis | No relief; trial counsel had a reasonable basis and no prejudice |
| Emergency aid exception applicability at suppression | Shrieves contends EMT testimony would show no emergency met exception | Commonwealth relied on prior ruling that emergency aid could apply | Court declined to reexamine; exception not established for relief |
| Strategic basis for not calling witnesses | Shrieves argues lack of sensible strategy to forego EMT testimony prejudiced defense | Counsel reasonably decided not to call EMTs given anticipated impact | No ineffective assistance; reasonable strategy supported |
| PCRA claims vs. previously litigated issues | Shrieves asserts new theory of relief | Requests relief on new theory but reiterates prior issues | PCRA claims not viable to revisit already decided direct-appeal issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (ineffectiveness requires proof of prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Sneed, 45 A.3d 1096 (Pa. 2012) (three-pronged test for ineffective assistance)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 786 A.2d 203 (Pa. 2001) (three-pronged Strickland standard)
- Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2015) (PCRA litigations require each prong; can dismiss without addressing others)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009) (counsel’s duty to investigate; strategic decisions allowed)
- Commonwealth v. Pittman, 44 A.2d 436 (Pa. Super. 1982) (witness availability and strategic choice in defense)
- Commonwealth v. Hutchins, 760 A.2d 50 (Pa. Super. 2000) (PCRA claims cannot revisit directly adjudicated issues)
- Commonwealth v. Galvin, 985 A.2d 783 (Pa. 2009) (emergency aid exception framework)
- Commonwealth v. Potts, 73 A.3d 1275 (Pa. Super. 2013) (emergency aid and exigency considerations)