Com. v. Ware, M.
Com. v. Ware, M. No. 2215 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 5, 2017Background
- Malik Ware was convicted by a jury (April 2010) of two counts of attempted murder and related charges; sentenced to two consecutive 25-to-life terms; direct appeals were unsuccessful.
- Ware filed a timely PCRA petition (Aug 29, 2013); amended petition (June 2014) raised illegal sentence and ineffective assistance of counsel claims; ineffective assistance claim dismissed without a hearing.
- PCRA court granted relief in part and Ware was resentenced on June 3, 2016 (new consecutive terms imposed).
- Ware argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call eyewitness Tanesha Washington, whose investigation interview was proffered to show she would not have identified Ware as one of the shooters.
- The PCRA court dismissed the ineffective-assistance claim without an evidentiary hearing under Pa.R.Crim.P. 907; Ware appealed the denial of a hearing and relief.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA court abused discretion by denying evidentiary hearing and relief on claim counsel was ineffective for not calling witness Tanesha Washington | Washington would have testified she did not see Ware match the description of shooters and thus counsel’s failure prejudiced Ware | Washington’s purported testimony was immaterial to the Commonwealth’s strong evidence; availability/willingness to testify not established | No abuse of discretion; claim lacked merit and was properly dismissed without a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Springer, 961 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard for reviewing denial of PCRA evidentiary hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 927 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007) (presumption that counsel is effective)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009) (three-part test for ineffective assistance under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Natividad, 938 A.2d 310 (Pa. 2007) (failure on any prong defeats ineffective-assistance claim)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903 (Pa. Super. 2008) (same)
- Commonwealth v. Sneed, 45 A.3d 1096 (Pa. 2012) (elements required to prove prejudice from failure to call a witness)