Com. v. Villanueva, J.
85 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 19, 2016Background
- Junior Villanueva was convicted after a 2010 jury trial of multiple sexual offenses arising from abuse of a minor who lived in his household; he received an aggregate sentence of 46 to 92 years.
- Direct appeal and petition for allowance of appeal were denied.
- Villanueva filed a timely pro se PCRA petition (2014); counsel filed an amended petition and a hearing was held.
- On PCRA review Villanueva raised five ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims: failing to appeal the child-witness competency ruling; failing to seek psychiatric evaluation of the child; failing to request a Spanish sign-language interpreter; failing to object to leading/hearsay questions; and failing to properly advise re: testifying.
- The PCRA court denied relief; the Superior Court affirmed after concluding each ineffectiveness claim lacked merit or prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Villanueva) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to appeal child-witness competency | Trial court applied incorrect standard; counsel ineffective for not appealing | Trial court correctly applied Rosche factors; record supports competency finding; appeal would be meritless | Counsel not ineffective; issue meritless |
| 2. Failure to seek psychiatric exam of child | Child showed "manifest incompetence" warranting evaluation; counsel ineffective for not requesting one | Competency hearing showed no indicia requiring psychological evaluation; court properly exercised discretion | Counsel not ineffective; no basis for evaluation |
| 3. Failure to request Spanish sign-language interpreter | Due to hearing deficiency, Villanueva needed a Spanish sign-language interpreter; counsel ineffective for not requesting | Record showed a spoken Spanish interpreter was provided, Villanueva used hearing aids/read lips, counsel did not alert court to need; no obvious necessity | Counsel not ineffective; no abuse of discretion in not appointing one |
| 4. Failure to object to leading/hearsay questions (M.S.) | Counsel should have objected to leading questions and hearsay testimony from sister M.S. | Counsel reasonably declined to object (anticipated re-questioning, doctrines like present sense impression/excited utterance applied); testimony largely cumulative of victim | Counsel’s tactical choice reasonable; no prejudice shown |
| 5. Failure to advise about testifying | Counsel failed to properly advise Villanueva about benefits/risks of testifying | Counsel discussed advantages/disadvantages, cross-examination risk, right to remain silent; defendant made informed decision not to testify | No ineffective assistance; defendant’s choice was knowing and voluntary |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosche v. McCoy, 156 A.2d 307 (Pa. 1959) (sets child-witness competency factors)
- Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2015) (PCRA ineffective-assistance standard discussion)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (Pierce test for counsel ineffectiveness articulated)
- Commonwealth v. Wallace, 641 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 1994) (interpreter appointment standards)
- Commonwealth v. Wells, 521 A.2d 1388 (Pa. 1987) (deference to tactical trial decisions regarding objections)