Com. v. Swanson, M., Com. v. Swanson, M. No. 586 WDA 2016

In December 2012 a 13‑year‑old victim reported an incident during her Christmas break in which Appellant Mason Swanson (then 22) allegedly showered with her; the criminal information listed December 28, 2012 as the approximate date.
Swanson was charged with corruption of minors and indecent assault, convicted by a jury, and sentenced to consecutive prison terms (10–24 months and 6–24 months); this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
Swanson filed a timely PCRA petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to call his mother as an alibi witness (he claimed he was at his mother’s house in Erie on Dec. 28 and lacked transportation) and (2) failing to object to the Commonwealth’s in‑court identification of him as improper/leading and potentially identifying his brother instead.
At the PCRA evidentiary hearing trial counsel testified he discussed the alibi with Swanson and counsel and client agreed not to present it because the alleged date was indefinite, the victim’s statements varied, and the alibi was weakly corroborated; counsel pursued a credibility‑attack strategy instead.
The PCRA court found counsel’s strategic choices objectively reasonable and that objections to the in‑court identification would have been meritless or harmful to strategy; the court denied relief and this Court affirmed.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth / Trial Counsel Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not calling Swanson’s mother as an alibi witness	Swanson: mother existed, was available and willing, and would corroborate he was at her home on Dec. 28, so failing to call her prejudiced him	Counsel: alibi covered only one date within an indefinite timeframe, weak corroboration, risked hurting credibility and overall defense strategy; client agreed to forego alibi	Denied — counsel’s decision had an objectively reasonable strategic basis; no PCRA relief
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to Commonwealth’s in‑court identification (leading questions and misidentification of brother)	Swanson: prosecutor used leading questions and the victim may have identified his brother by location/clothing rather than him	Counsel: identity was not disputed (victim knew defendant long‑standing); identification followed victim’s testimony; an objection could highlight prior acquaintance and conflict with defense strategy; judge confirmed identification	Denied — identification was proper and objection would have been meritless or contrary to strategy

Barndt v. Pennsylvania, 74 A.3d 185 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for PCRA orders)
Garcia v. Commonwealth, 23 A.3d 1059 (Pa. Super. 2011) (PCRA review principles)
Washington v. Commonwealth, 927 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007) (presumption of counsel effectiveness)
Johnson v. Commonwealth, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009) (three‑part ineffective assistance test)
Springer v. Commonwealth, 961 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Super. 2008) (PCRA claim denial if any prong unmet)
Thomas v. Commonwealth, 44 A.3d 12 (Pa. 2012) (requirements for proving uncalled witness alibi)
Koehler v. Commonwealth, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (strategic choice and timing of objections)
Tilley v. Commonwealth, 80 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2001) (counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless claims)