Com. v. Thompson, C., Com. v. Thompson, C. No. 1531 MDA 2016

In December 2011 appellant Chapel Thompson and co-defendants forcibly took money from victim Leroy Freeman over multiple incidents, including threats with a firearm and restraining the victim with handcuffs. Thompson was arrested January 4, 2012.
Thompson was tried jointly with co-defendants; evidence seized from his home included two handguns (a Glock and a Makarov) and handcuffs. A pretrial motion in limine excluded the Makarov unless the door was opened; the Glock and handcuffs were ruled admissible.
During trial the victim described the gun as “maybe silver and brown”; the Commonwealth introduced both the Glock and the Makarov after the victim’s testimony, and Thompson’s counsel later requested a mistrial (denied).
Thompson was convicted of robbery, kidnapping, conspiracy, theft by extortion, and unlawful restraint and received an aggregate sentence of 23 to 46 years. Direct appeal and discretionary review were denied.
Thompson filed a timely PCRA petition raising (1) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to challenge admission of the firearms, and (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for interfering with Thompson’s right to testify. The PCRA court denied relief and this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising admission of two firearms	Thompson: counsel should have raised and briefed trial court error admitting the Glock and Makarov; admission was highly prejudicial	Commonwealth/PCRA Ct: Glock objection waived at trial so no arguable merit; Makarov admissible because relevance, proximity in time, matching victim description, and showed access/opportunity	Denied — appellate counsel not ineffective. Glock issue waived; Makarov admission not an abuse of discretion and thus meritless to raise on appeal
2. Whether trial counsel interfered with Thompson’s right to testify	Thompson: counsel failed to inform or coerced him not to testify; no on-record colloquy, limited meetings	Commonwealth/PCRA Ct: trial counsel credibly advised Thompson twice, explained pros/cons, Thompson knowingly chose not to testify; counsel reasonably advised against testifying to avoid opening excluded evidence and damaging cross-examination	Denied — no interference and advice was reasonable; waiver of right to testify was knowing and intelligent

Commonwealth v. Paddy, 15 A.3d 430 (Pa. 2011) (ineffective assistance test requiring arguable merit, no reasonable basis, and prejudice)
Commonwealth v. Dillon, 925 A.2d 131 (Pa. 2007) (standard for abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 640 A.2d 1251 (Pa. 1994) (weapon found in defendant's possession may be admitted even if not proven to be the exact weapon used)
Commonwealth v. Christine, 125 A.3d 394 (Pa. 2015) (possession of a handgun may be relevant even if not shown to be the one used in the crime)
Commonwealth v. Nieves, 746 A.2d 1102 (Pa. 2000) (counsel ineffective for interfering with right to testify or giving advice so unreasonable it vitiates a knowing waiver)
Commonwealth v. O’Bidos, 849 A.2d 243 (Pa. Super. 2004) (counsel not ineffective where decision not to call defendant was reasonable)
Commonwealth v. Puskar, 951 A.2d 267 (Pa. 2008) (counsel not ineffective for refusing to offer testimony that could open door to excluded evidence)