Commonwealth v. Barnett
25 A.3d 371
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Barnett was convicted of first-degree murder and other offenses in 2002 and sentenced to life plus concurrent terms.
- Barnett’s direct appeal was deemed waived due to poorly drafted briefing.
- Barnett pursued a PCRA claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, including appellate counsel’s performance, which the PCRA court denied after an evidentiary hearing.
- Our court later reinstated Barnett’s direct-appeal rights nunc pro tunc but limited review to collateral considerations of IAC, with Barnett filing a new nunc pro tunc direct appeal.
- The Supreme Court’s evolving IAC framework (Grant, Bomar, Wright, Liston, Montalvo) governs whether IAC claims are reviewed on direct appeal or collateral review.
- The panel held that IAC claims are properly raised on collateral review and dismissed the direct-appeal-based IAC assertions without prejudice to raising them in a future PCRA petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can IAC claims be reviewed on direct appeal nunc pro tunc without a waiver of PCRA review? | Barnett argues Bomar allows direct-review of IAC claims raised pre-petition. | State argues Wright/Liston require express waiver of PCRA review to review IAC on direct appeal. | IAC claims may not be reviewed on direct appeal without waiver; dismissed without prejudice to PCRA review. |
| Do Wright footnote 22 and Liston limit hybrid direct-review of IAC claims? | Barnett contends hybrid review may be permissible under Bomar precedent. | State asserts Wright and Liston foreclose two rounds of collateral review absent waiver. | Hybrid direct-review of IAC claims is not permitted absent an express, knowing, voluntary waiver of further PCRA review. |
| Should Liston overrule reinstatement of direct-appeal rights for IAC claims on direct review? | Barnett relies on prior remand allowing direct-review of IAC claims. | Liston vacated broader reinstatement authority and deferred IAC review to collateral review. | The court adheres to Liston and Wright as controlling; IAC claims must be raised in collateral review absent waiver. |
| What is the proper course for Barnett’s IAC claims given the pennsylvania case-law trajectory? | Barnett seeks direct appellate review of IAC claims. | Commonwealth argues for collateral-review-only path absent waiver. | Dismiss IAC claims without prejudice to raise them in a future PCRA petition; affirm judgment of sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48 (Pa. 2002) (ineffective-assistance claims are generally reserved for collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426 (Pa. 2003) (IAC claims reviewable on direct appeal when raised prior and trial court conducted a hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 599 Pa. 270 (Pa. 2008) (footnote 22 suggesting waivers needed for post-verdict collateral claims)
- Commonwealth v. Liston, 602 Pa. 10 (Pa. 2009) (overruled en banc approach to reinstating direct-appeal rights and re: waiver of PCRA rights)
- Commonwealth v. Rega, 593 Pa. 659 (Pa. 2007) (directions on direct-appeal review of IAC in light of Grant/Bomar lineage)
- Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 604 Pa. 386 (Pa. 2009) (noted shift toward limiting hybrid review going forward)