Commonwealth v. Bickerstaff
204 A.3d 988
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- On Feb 20, 2011, Bickerstaff shot the victim at close range; the victim survived with severe injuries requiring surgery. Appellant was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, PIC, weapons offenses, simple assault, and REAP.
- The criminal complaint and information charged attempted murder generally and did not allege or give notice that the Commonwealth would prove "serious bodily injury" in connection with the attempted murder count.
- At trial the jury convicted Bickerstaff of attempted murder and other offenses; a verdict-sheet interrogatory (asked only after guilty verdict on attempted murder) asked whether the complainant suffered serious bodily injury, to which the jury answered "Yes." Trial counsel did not object to the interrogatory.
- On April 20, 2012, the court imposed an aggregate 20–40 year sentence, including an enhanced 20–40 year term for attempted murder/serious bodily injury. Direct appeals were denied and Appellant filed a PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance and an illegal sentence, among other claims.
- The PCRA court denied relief; on appeal the Superior Court affirmed denial of relief on most claims but held counsel ineffective for failing to object to the surprise serious-bodily-injury interrogatory and the resulting enhanced sentence, vacating the judgment of sentence and remanding for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Bickerstaff's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on Strickland claims (investigation/after-discovered witness Jamal Allen) | Counsel failed to investigate; Allen would exculpate; hearing required | Claim previously litigated on direct appeal and lacks merit | No hearing required; claim lacks arguable merit and was previously addressed on direct appeal |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object after charges were dismissed at a preliminary hearing (no second preliminary) | Counsel should have moved to quash because Municipal Court dismissed without a second preliminary hearing | Charges were refiled and held for court after a preliminary hearing in Common Pleas; motion to quash would be meritless | Counsel not ineffective; record shows refiled charges and a subsequent probable cause hearing |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to sentence enhancement for attempted murder/serious bodily injury where information gave no notice | Commonwealth never charged or gave notice it would prove serious bodily injury for attempted murder; counsel should have objected to interrogatory and enhanced sentence | Commonwealth points to overwhelming evidence and a stipulation to medical records; contends error was harmless | Held for Appellant: counsel ineffective for failing to object to surprise interrogatory and enhanced sentence; enhancement vacated; judgment of sentence vacated; remand for resentencing without enhancement |
| Whether PCRA court erred in denying relief and refusing to vacate illegal sentence | Sentence exceeded statutory maximum for attempted murder as charged absent notice/proof of serious bodily injury | Error was harmless because serious bodily injury was proven | Court agreed sentence was illegal due to lack of notice/instruction; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (facts increasing statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)
- Commonwealth v. Barnes, 167 A.3d 110 (Pa. Super. Ct. en banc 2017) (vacating enhanced attempted-murder sentence where no notice/instruction on serious bodily injury)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 910 A.2d 60 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (jury must find serious bodily injury for attempted murder to support enhanced sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 645 A.2d 189 (Pa. 1994) (reasonableness/strategic-basis inquiry in ineffectiveness claims)