Com. v. Thomas, D.
Com. v. Thomas, D. No. 1150 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Appellant Darnell Thomas (aka Daryl Thurston) was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and related offenses for the April 17, 2007 killing of Juan Carlos Rosa; he was sentenced to life without parole on June 30, 2011.
- Victim was assaulted in Philadelphia; his body was later found dead in Trenton, New Jersey. Thomas argued Pennsylvania courts lacked territorial jurisdiction.
- Thomas’s direct appeal and petition for allowance of appeal were denied; he then filed a pro se PCRA petition in November 2014. Counsel was appointed and filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and motion to withdraw in November 2015. The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and ultimately denied relief and granted counsel’s withdrawal on April 4, 2016. Thomas appealed pro se.
- Thomas raised seven issues on appeal, principally attacking PCRA counsel’s effectiveness and arguing jurisdictional defects and various trial-record deficiencies (DNA, accomplice liability, duress, layered ineffective assistance).
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the jurisdictional claim was previously litigated and rejecting the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims against PCRA counsel, adopting the PCRA court’s opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thomas) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Territorial jurisdiction under 18 Pa.C.S. §102 | Philadelphia lacked jurisdiction because killing occurred in New Jersey | Crimes began in Philadelphia; acts there established complicity and Pennsylvania had jurisdiction | Affirmed — claim previously litigated and meritless; Pennsylvania had jurisdiction |
| PCRA counsel complied with Turner/Finley requirements | Counsel failed to meet Turner/Finley duties when filing no‑merit letter and moving to withdraw | PCRA counsel’s no‑merit letter complied with Turner/Finley and PCRA court reviewed the record | Affirmed — court found compliance with Turner/Finley |
| Failure to raise/adequately present layered ineffective-assistance claims | Counsel did not properly present layered Strickland claims or investigate trial counsel errors | Counsel had reasonable basis; claims lacked merit or arguable merit necessary for relief | Affirmed — PCRA court correctly rejected ineffectiveness claims under Strickland/Pierce standard |
| Investigation of alleged record defects (accomplice liability, DNA, duress) | Counsel failed to investigate inconsistencies, DNA issues, and trial errors leading to prejudice | Record does not show counsel’s failure; issues were meritless or previously litigated; no prejudice shown | Affirmed — no genuine issues warranting relief or hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑pronged standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Pierce v. Commonwealth, 786 A.2d 203 (Pa. 2001) (application of Strickland in Pennsylvania requiring arguable merit, no reasonable basis, and prejudice)
- Montalvo v. Commonwealth, 114 A.3d 401 (Pa. 2015) (summary of Strickland/Pierce standards)
- Roane v. Commonwealth, 142 A.3d 79 (Pa. Super. 2016) (previous‑litigation bar and standards for collateral claims)
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (requirements for counsel when filing no‑merit letter)
- Finley v. Commonwealth, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (no‑merit letter procedures for PCRA counsel)