Com. v. Zimmerman, M.
Com. v. Zimmerman, M. No. 2433 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 8, 2017Background
- Matthew Zimmerman was convicted after a non-jury trial in 2007 of two counts of first-degree murder for the 1997 killings of his parents and sentenced to life imprisonment; direct appeal was denied.
- Zimmerman filed a timely PCRA petition in 2010 raising multiple ineffective-assistance claims and requesting discovery (complete autopsy report, information/rap sheets and potential deals for two Commonwealth witnesses, an unidentified fingerprint).
- The PCRA court denied discovery as fishing expeditions, issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, and dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing in July 2015. Zimmerman appealed.
- His principal claims: (1) trial counsel ineffectively advised/handled a jury-waiver decision; (2) counsel failed to object under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) and to challenge pre‑indictment delay; (3) counsel failed to investigate/time‑of‑death expert and to pursue an alibi defense; (4) the PCRA court wrongly denied discovery and an evidentiary hearing.
- The PCRA court found Zimmerman’s discovery requests speculative, his alibi affidavits irrelevant or incomplete as to the alleged time of death window, and Zimmerman failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Zimmerman) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA court erred in denying discovery of Brady/Giglio material and autopsy report | Requested complete autopsy, witness deals, rap sheets; claimed Brady/Giglio material withheld | Requests were speculative/fishing; no exceptional circumstances shown under Pa.R.Crim.P. 902 | Denial affirmed — no exceptional circumstances; discovery properly refused |
| Whether trial counsel ineffective for advising/allowing bench‑trial waiver | Waiver form misleading and bench trial reduced protections; would have sought mistrial in jury trial | Court extensively colloquied Zimmerman; waiver was knowing and intelligent; claim unsupported | Claim waived/meritless; counsel not ineffective |
| Whether trial counsel ineffective for failing to raise IAD or object to detainer handling | Zimmerman argued IAD entitles dismissal because Commonwealth returned him to custody before trial | Trial counsel did raise IAD pretrial; court found transfer via habeas corpus ad prosequendum (IAD inapplicable) | Claim fails — counsel raised issue and IAD did not apply |
| Whether counsel ineffective for failing to challenge pre‑indictment delay | Delay from 1997 to 2003 impaired ability to gather alibi witnesses, autopsy, expert | Zimmerman failed to show actual prejudice; proffered affidavits were obtained years later and did not establish missing evidence or impairment | Claim fails — no showing of actual prejudice |
| Whether counsel ineffective for failure to investigate/time‑of‑death expert and call alibi witnesses | Needed expert to narrow time of death to a Sunday window and alibi witnesses to cover that window | Zimmerman did not identify a willing expert or provide an affidavit of availability; proffered alibi affidavits did not cover the critical period | Claim fails — petitioner did not satisfy elements for expert/alibi ineffectiveness |
| Whether PCRA court erred in denying evidentiary hearing | Argued credibility issues for alibi witnesses required hearing | Affidavits did not raise genuine material factual issue that would entitle relief; claims speculative | Denial of hearing affirmed under Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 — no genuine issue of material fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (disclosure of exculpatory evidence required)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (prosecutor must disclose witness‑impeachment deals)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑part ineffective assistance standard requiring deficient performance and prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210 (scope and standard of PCRA review)
- Commonwealth v. Kelley, 136 A.3d 1007 (three‑part test for ineffective assistance under Pennsylvania law)
- Alabama v. Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146 (IAD dismissal/remedy principles)
- Commonwealth v. Louden, 803 A.2d 1181 (pre‑indictment delay requires showing of actual prejudice and improper reasons for delay)
- Commonwealth v. Lowery, 784 A.2d 795 (requirements for establishing failure to call expert witness under PCRA)