Com. v. Wegemer, R.
732 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- Appellant Robert Lee Wegemer, then 9-year-old victim’s babysitter, was convicted by jury of rape of a child, sexual assault (merged), indecent assault, endangering welfare of children (EWOC), and corruption of minors for sexual intercourse with a nine‑year‑old in June 2010.
- Sentenced to 10–20 years for rape of a child, consecutive 9–24 months for EWOC, and concurrent 9–24 months on other counts.
- Appellant filed a timely counseled PCRA petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call available character witnesses; he attached five affidavits stating those persons would have testified to his reputation as law‑abiding.
- At the PCRA hearing, Appellant testified he mentioned witnesses to trial counsel but did not provide names/contacts; counsel testified he did not recall being given specific names or addresses and believed the limited description of potential testimony (e.g., fixing a lawnmower) would be irrelevant.
- The PCRA court found Appellant failed to show counsel knew the witnesses’ identities or that the testimony would have been admissible/relevant and denied relief; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call character witnesses at trial | Wegemer: counsel refused to call multiple available witnesses who would have testified to his reputation as law‑abiding, undermining the victim’s credibility and warranting a new trial | Counsel (and PCRA court): Appellant did not provide names/contacts; counsel had no notice and reasonably declined because the proffered testimony would have been inadmissible or irrelevant | Court held counsel was not ineffective: Appellant failed to prove counsel knew of available witnesses or that their testimony would be admissible/prejudicial; PCRA denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 935 A.2d 542 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for PCRA denial)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2007) (deference to PCRA court findings)
- Commonwealth v. Knighten, 742 A.2d 679 (Pa. Super. 1999) (credibility findings by PCRA court are binding when supported by record)
- Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 858 A.2d 1219 (Pa. Super. 2004) (presumption that counsel is effective)
- Commonwealth v. Kimball, 724 A.2d 326 (Pa. 1999) (three‑part ineffective assistance test)
- Commonwealth v. O'Bidos, 849 A.2d 243 (Pa. Super. 2004) (requirements to establish ineffectiveness for failing to call a witness)
- Commonwealth v. Khalil, 806 A.2d 415 (Pa. Super. 2002) (witness‑calling ineffectiveness standard)
- Commonwealth v. Lauro, 819 A.2d 100 (Pa. Super. 2003) (character evidence admissibility limits in rape cases)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (referenced re: nonretroactivity issues; discussed by court)