Com. v. Stays, D.
1412 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 12, 2016Background
- On June 22, 2008, Nasir Farlow was shot; a .40 caliber shell casing was recovered from a sewer near the scene.
- Detective Flaville interviewed witness Ivan Williams, who gave a signed statement identifying “Wayne” (later identified as Duane Stays) and circled Stays’ photo; a search of the identified residence recovered a Glock .40 and other items linking Stays to the scene.
- At the preliminary hearing Williams recanted, denying knowledge and disavowing the signed photo identification. Between the preliminary hearing and trial Williams was murdered.
- At trial the preliminary-hearing testimony was read into the record and Detective Flaville testified about Williams’ signed police statement; a ballistics expert matched the sewer shell casing to the Glock recovered in Stays’ apartment. Stays was convicted and sentenced to 15–30 years.
- On direct appeal this Court affirmed. Stays then filed a first PCRA petition asserting Confrontation Clause error and trial counsel ineffectiveness for failing to object; the PCRA court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing and permitted counsel to withdraw after a Turner/Finley no‑merit submission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Williams’ prior inconsistent statement violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause | Stays: admission of Williams’ out-of-court identification statements denied his right to confront the witness | Commonwealth: Williams was unavailable and had an adequate prior opportunity for cross-examination at the preliminary hearing | Previously litigated on direct appeal; objection would have been meritless because Williams was unavailable and cross-examination at the preliminary hearing satisfied Confrontation Clause requirements; claim denied |
| Trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to admission of Williams’ statements due to alleged withheld impeachment evidence | Stays: counsel should have objected and was prejudiced because impeachment evidence regarding Williams was withheld | Commonwealth: the underlying Confrontation claim lacks merit; impeachment evidence referenced would have been inadmissible or counsel had no strategic basis to fail to pursue it | Ineffective-assistance claim fails because the underlying Confrontation claim lacks arguable merit; PCRA relief denied |
| Necessity of an evidentiary hearing on the PCRA petition | Stays: factual disputes (e.g., counsel’s knowledge of Williams’ pending charges) warrant a hearing | Commonwealth/PCRA court: record refutes material factual disputes; no prima facie case shown | No hearing required where petition raises no unresolved material facts and allegations are refuted by the record |
| Whether issues are previously litigated or waived | Stays: seeks reconsideration under PCRA | Commonwealth: Confrontation claim was decided on direct appeal and thus is previously litigated/waived | Claim is previously litigated under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(a)(2); PCRA relief unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2015) (PCRA standards and when hearings are required)
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 108 A.3d 821 (Pa. 2014) (PCRA hearing standards; no hearing if facts undisputed)
- Commonwealth v. Dennis, 17 A.3d 297 (Pa. 2011) (standard of review for PCRA denials; deference to credibility findings)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (ineffective assistance test application)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (Pierce test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282 (Pa. 2010) (presumption of effective assistance; failure to raise meritless claim not ineffective)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 912 A.2d 268 (Pa. 2006) (counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless claims)
- Commonwealth v. Collins, 888 A.2d 564 (Pa. 2005) (derivative ineffectiveness claims may fail where underlying claim lacks merit)
- Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 25 A.3d 277 (Pa. 2011) (no hearing when record refutes petitioner's allegations)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 36 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2011) (same)
- Commonwealth v. Morris, 684 A.2d 1037 (Pa. 1996) (PCRA hearing not required absent disputed material facts)
- Commonwealth v. Stays, 70 A.3d 1256 (Pa. Super. 2013) (direct appeal decision rejecting Confrontation Clause objection)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (no‑merit/withdrawal procedures)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (no‑merit/withdrawal procedures)