Com. v. Stansbury, K.
219 A.3d 157
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2019Background
- Stansbury drove to a Philadelphia home and shot at two people on the porch (Abdul Scott and Rachel Ostrow); he was charged under two separate docket numbers for the two victims and tried jointly.
- Stansbury represented himself at trial; after a mistrial and a second trial a jury convicted him of attempted murder, aggravated assault, and firearm offenses; aggregate sentence 35–70 years plus 7 years probation.
- He appealed pro se on direct appeal and was denied relief (Commonwealth v. Stansbury). He then filed a timely pro se PCRA petition raising insufficiency of identity evidence and challenge to admission of a 911 call; counsel was appointed and later filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing; its dismissal order (covering both docket numbers) advised Stansbury to file a single notice of appeal within 30 days.
- The Superior Court confronted a potential Walker defect (Walker requires separate notices for multiple dockets). Because the PCRA court’s instruction misadvised Stansbury about how to file, the panel treated that as a breakdown in court operations and declined to quash the appeal.
- On the merits the Superior Court affirmed: Stansbury’s trial‑error claims were previously litigated or waived on direct appeal, and the PCRA court did not abuse discretion in dismissing without a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Stansbury's Argument | Commonwealth / PCRA Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of 911 caller identifying him (motion in limine denied) | Admission was highly prejudicial; denial denied a fair trial | Issue was raised on direct appeal and thus previously litigated/waived under the PCRA | Dismissed as previously litigated; no PCRA relief |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove identity as shooter | Evidence was insufficient to establish identity beyond a reasonable doubt | Sufficiency claim was raised on direct appeal and thus previously litigated/waived | Dismissed as previously litigated; no PCRA relief |
| PCRA court erred in dismissing petition without an evidentiary hearing | Petition raised genuine issues of material fact requiring a hearing | Records showed claims were previously litigated/waived; no genuine material factual dispute requiring hearing | Denial of hearing affirmed; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether single notice of appeal (covering two dockets) required quashal under Walker | PCRA court misadvised him; he filed single notice as instructed | Walker requires separate notices, but court breakdown exception can apply | Walker defect excused here due to court misstatement; appeal heard on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Stansbury, 190 A.3d 719 (Pa. Super. 2018) (direct appeal affirming convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (requires separate notices of appeal when multiple dockets are affected)
- Commonwealth v. Braykovich, 664 A.2d 133 (Pa. Super. 1995) (court‑breakdown exception to filing rules excuses late appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 149 A.3d 867 (Pa. Super. 2016) (trial court misinformation can constitute court breakdown excusing procedural defects)
- Commonwealth v. Parlante, 823 A.2d 927 (Pa. Super. 2003) (misstatement of appeal period by court can excuse late appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Reyes‑Rodriguez, 111 A.3d 775 (Pa. Super. 2015) (claims of trial court error are previously litigated or waived at PCRA stage)
- Commonwealth v. Maddrey, 205 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2019) (no absolute right to evidentiary hearing on PCRA petition)