Com. v. Simpson, R.
Com. v. Simpson, R. No. 2737 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 6, 2017Background
- Appellant Randolph Simpson shot out the windows of Taihisha Henry’s SUV after an argument; he was tried non-jury, convicted under the persons not to possess a firearm statute, and sentenced to 5–10 years (acquitted of terroristic threats).
- Simpson filed a nunc pro tunc direct appeal challenging sufficiency of the evidence; this Court affirmed.
- Simpson timely filed a pro se PCRA petition; counsel was appointed and an amended petition was filed. The PCRA court (the trial judge) held a hearing and denied relief on August 15, 2016.
- Simpson raised three ineffective-assistance claims: (1) trial counsel failed to fully explain ramifications of waiving a jury trial; (2) trial counsel failed to impeach witness Henry regarding expected consideration in her separate aggravated assault case; (3) appellate counsel failed to challenge the validity of Simpson’s consent to search (intoxication) on direct appeal.
- The PCRA court found Simpson knowingly and voluntarily waived a jury trial, that no evidence showed Henry received or was promised leniency for testifying, and that Simpson failed to prove appellate counsel lacked a reasonable basis for not raising the suppression claim. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not fully advising Simpson about waiving a jury trial | Simpson: counsel didn’t explain ramifications tied to which judge heard witness’s prior plea and related strategic effects | Commonwealth/PCRA court: waiver was knowing/voluntary; essential jury-trial elements were explained and signed waiver existed | Denied — Simpson failed to show arguable merit or prejudice; waiver was knowing and intelligent |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not impeaching Henry about expected consideration in her separate aggravated-assault case | Simpson: counsel should have questioned Henry about deals or expectations of leniency to impeach credibility | Commonwealth/PCRA court: no evidence of any deal; Henry’s criminal history and possible motives were explored at trial | Denied — speculative assertion without evidence; no prejudice shown |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising suppression (consent due to intoxication) on direct appeal | Simpson: appellate counsel omitted a meritorious suppression claim | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Simpson bore burden to prove counsel lacked reasonable basis; appellate counsel did not testify | Denied — Simpson failed to prove lack of reasonable basis; claim also lacked arguable merit because officer credibly testified Simpson was coherent when he consented |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Whitehawk, 146 A.3d 266 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Andrews, 158 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. 2017) (presumption that counsel is effective)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 72 A.3d 652 (Pa. Super. 2013) (requirements for a knowing, intelligent jury-trial waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 312 A.2d 597 (Pa. 1973) (essential ingredients of a jury trial for waiver inquiry)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (rejecting speculative ineffective-assistance claims without supporting evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 986 A.2d 84 (Pa. 2009) (petitioner bears burden to prove all prongs of ineffective-assistance test)
- Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (importance of counsel testimony at PCRA hearing to show lack of reasonable basis)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellate court may affirm PCRA denial on any correct ground supported by record)