Commonwealth, Aplt v. Pelzer, K.
104 A.3d 267
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Daniels and Pelzer were convicted jointly of first‑degree murder for kidnapping and killing 16‑year‑old Alexander Porter; both juries returned death sentences after finding four aggravators and limited mitigation.
- After direct appeal and multiple collateral filings, the PCRA court (Lineberger) granted new trials on guilt‑phase claims in 2003 but did not fully explain denial of many other claims; this Court vacated that grant in 2009 and remanded for a reasoned opinion on the remaining issues.
- On remand the case was reassigned to Judge Temin, who re‑examined remaining claims de novo (Lineberger had retired) and granted new penalty‑phase proceedings for each defendant based on ineffective assistance for failure to investigate/present mitigation; guilt‑phase relief was denied.
- The Commonwealth appealed the penalty‑phase grants; appellees cross‑appealed denial of other claims. The Supreme Court affirmed relief for Pelzer (penalty) but reversed as to Daniels, dismissing his PCRA petition in full.
- Key legal themes: limits of remand and coordinate‑jurisdiction deference; standards for layered Strickland claims (trial and appellate counsel); Brady, Bruton, jury instruction and mistake‑of‑fact theories; penalty‑phase mitigation investigation and prejudice analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper scope of successor PCRA judge on remand / coordinate jurisdiction | Commonwealth: Temin exceeded remand, improperly overruled Lineberger, violating Pa.R.A.P. 2591 and coordinate‑jurisdiction | Pelzer/Daniels: Lineberger dismissed penalty claims as moot; remand invited full merits review; successor judge may decide anew | Court: remand permissible here — Lineberger gave no reasoned merits rulings; successor judge may re‑examine claims de novo to provide appellate record |
| Brady / evidence re: cause of death (body receiving record, gun‑shot timing, forensic report) | Appellees: withheld evidence showed victim died before park shooting, undermining specific intent | Commonwealth: evidence not favorable or material; some claims waived/new; prior appellate rejection of cause‑of‑death theory bars relitigation | Court: Brady claims fail — lack of materiality and/or waiver; prior Strickland/merits rejection forecloses relitigation |
| Jury instructions & mistake‑of‑fact (specific intent) | Appellees: trial court charged unbalancedly and counsel ineffective for not objecting/requesting mistake‑of‑fact instruction | Commonwealth: evidence did not support reasonable mistake belief; even if given, no prejudice given overwhelming proof of intent | Court: claims fail — counsel objected at trial to many charge points; prior rulings and totality of evidence defeat prejudice showing |
| Ineffective closing arguments (guilt phase) | Appellees: counsel failed to present coherent defense or focus on cause‑of‑death theory | Commonwealth: summations sufficiently emphasized reasonable doubt and attacked Commonwealth evidence; any miscues not prejudicial | Court: summations not constitutionally deficient; even if imperfect, no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Bruton / redacted co‑defendant statements | Appellees: redactions were insufficient; interlocking statements violated confrontation | Commonwealth: statements properly redacted; limiting instructions given; no Bruton violation | Court: redactions were neutral pronouns; instruction adequate; appellate counsel not ineffective for not raising frivolous Bruton claim |
| Penalty‑phase mitigation investigation (Pelzer) | Pelzer: counsel failed to investigate school records, childhood abuse, and failed to retain mental‑health experts — would have shown (e)(2)/(e)(3) and stronger (e)(8) mitigation; prejudice exists | Commonwealth: counsel interviewed family and pursued positive strategy; PCRA experts and records are equivocal and rebutted by Commonwealth experts | Held: PCRA court rightly found deficient performance and Strickland prejudice for Pelzer — new penalty hearing affirmed |
| Penalty‑phase mitigation investigation (Daniels) | Daniels: counsel failed to present available family history and mental‑health proof; prejudice shown | Commonwealth: counsel (including co‑counsel) investigated, presented mitigation including conversion; PCRA evidence incremental and not likely to change at least one juror | Held: Court assumes possible deficiency but finds no reasonable probability of different penalty result — award of new penalty phase for Daniels reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution must disclose exculpatory/impeaching evidence)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (limitations on admitting co‑defendant confessions at joint trials)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (counsel’s duty to investigate mitigation; prejudice analysis in capital cases)
- Daniels and Pelzer, 600 Pa. 1 (Pa. 2009) (prior PCRA appellate decision remanding for reasoned opinion)
- Appel, 517 Pa. 529 (Pa. 1988) (interpretation of killing‑to‑prevent‑witness aggravator and direct‑evidence requirement)
- Lassiter, 554 Pa. 586 (Pa. 1998) (discussion of accomplice liability under (d)(6) aggravator)
- Gibson II, 610 Pa. 332 (Pa. 2011) (Strickland prejudice at penalty phase; reweighing instruction)
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 624 Pa. 4 (Pa. 2014) (Strickland standards and appellate review in capital PCRA context)