Commonwealth v. Benner
147 A.3d 915
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Appellant Chad D. Benner was convicted at trial of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI) and indecent assault for repeated sexual abuse of C.H., his former girlfriend’s younger sister, occurring while C.H. was 14–16 years old.
- Trial evidence described a continuous course of grooming and multiple sexual assaults beginning when C.H. was 14 and stopping when the sister ended the relationship in September 2004.
- Appellant was initially sentenced to an aggregate 13–26 years (later vacated in part and resentenced to 12–24 years).
- Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition claiming, inter alia, that the Commonwealth failed to fix the dates of the offenses with the reasonable certainty required by Commonwealth v. Devlin, and that counsel was ineffective for not pressing the Devlin claim and for not using letters to impeach motive.
- The PCRA court denied relief; after procedural steps including a Grazier hearing and remand for supplemental opinion, the Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court’s denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process required the Commonwealth to allege/prove the crime date with greater specificity under Devlin | Benner: Devlin entitles him to dismissal because charging window (July 2002–Sept 2004) was too broad to allow an alibi/defense | Commonwealth: offenses were part of a continuous course of conduct; victim fixed start (age 14) and end (when relationship ended) narrowing timeframe | Court: Devlin inapplicable; continuous molestation permits broader timeframe; Victim testimony and sister’s move narrowed period—no due process violation |
| Whether counsel (direct/PCRA) was ineffective for not raising the Devlin claim | Benner: Counsel were ineffective for failing to preserve/argue the Devlin claim on appeal and PCRA | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Claim lacked arguable merit, so counsel’s failure was not deficient | Court: No arguable merit → no ineffectiveness; counsel not ineffective for omitting meritless claim |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not using jail letters to impeach C.H.’s sister and show motive to fabricate | Benner: Letters contained content suggesting motive to fabricate (custody issues) and should have been used on cross-exam | Trial counsel: Strategic decision to avoid introducing letters because they referenced appellant’s prior sexual convictions, which would harm the defense | Court: Trial counsel had a reasonable strategic basis; no ineffective assistance |
| Whether PCRA court erred procedurally in handling counsel substitution/Grazier and presentation of claims | Benner: PCRA counsel failed to preserve desired claims; sought pro se status and review | PCRA court: Held Grazier hearing, allowed pro se, remanded for supplemental opinion; considered arguments and factual record | Court: Procedural handling adequate; merits addressed and denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Devlin, 333 A.2d 888 (Pa. 1975) (due process requires prosecution to fix crime date with reasonable certainty; flexibility allowed depending on facts)
- Commonwealth v. Groff, 548 A.2d 1237 (Pa. Super. 1988) (prosecution afforded broad latitude when offense is a continuous course of criminal conduct)
- Commonwealth v. G.D.M., Sr., 926 A.2d 984 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Devlin concerns satisfied where victim can fix commencement and cessation of ongoing molestation)
- Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (counsel presumed effective; Strickland standard applied)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)