Com. v. Thomas, C.
Com. v. Thomas, C. No. 561 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Feb 15, 2017Background
- Christopher Thomas was convicted after a non-jury trial of eight counts of burglary and sentenced to an aggregate term of 8–16 years plus 20 years probation. Direct appeal affirmed; PA Supreme Court denied allocatur.
- Thomas filed a timely PCRA petition asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel and insufficiency of the evidence; PCRA counsel was appointed and an amended petition was filed.
- The PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss the amended petition without a hearing; Thomas did not respond and the petition was dismissed. Thomas appealed.
- Thomas raised two ineffective-assistance claims: (1) counsel’s closing argument allegedly conceded culpability/accomplice liability; (2) counsel failed to move for the trial judge’s recusal after the judge ruled on a motion in limine that revealed awareness of Thomas’s prior burglary convictions.
- The PCRA court dismissed both claims without an evidentiary hearing; the Superior Court affirmed dismissal of the closing-argument claim but remanded for the PCRA court to address the recusal-ineffectiveness claim on the merits via a Rule 1925(a) opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thomas) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for suggesting Thomas may have been complicit/accomplice in closing argument | Counsel’s remarks effectively conceded Thomas’s culpability, relieving the Commonwealth of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Remarks taken in context showed counsel was arguing alternate inferences to create reasonable doubt; court’s guilty finding rested on evidence, not counsel’s rhetoric | Dismissal without hearing affirmed; claim lacks arguable merit and no prejudice shown |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move for judge recusal after judge ruled on motion in limine revealing prior convictions | Counsel should have sought recusal because the bench judge, as factfinder, knew of Thomas’s prior burglary convictions and that knowledge was prejudicial | PCRA court treated the claim as previously litigated/without merit but did not evaluate the specific ineffectiveness claim based on the motion in limine | Remanded to PCRA court for a supplemental Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing arguable merit and prejudice of the recusal ineffectiveness claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ousley, 21 A.3d 1238 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for PCRA determinations)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (PCRA petitioners not automatically entitled to evidentiary hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595 (Pa. 2013) (abuse of discretion review for dismissal without a hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Steele, 961 A.2d 786 (Pa. 2008) (three-prong test for ineffective assistance under Pierce)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (framework for ineffectiveness analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Miner, 44 A.3d 684 (Pa. Super. 2012) (prejudice/practical effect requirement for ineffectiveness claims)
- Commonwealth v. Cooper, 941 A.2d 655 (Pa. 2007) (discussion of counsel concession and effect on fairness)
- Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standards for judicial recusal and appearance of impropriety)
- Commonwealth v. Goodman, 311 A.2d 652 (Pa. 1973) (prejudice from information received in prior proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Collins, 888 A.2d 564 (Pa. 2005) (when ineffectiveness claims are "previously litigated" under the PCRA)