Commonwealth v. Britt
83 A.3d 198
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background:
- Defendant Jori Britt was arrested for the 2007 .50-caliber shooting death of Terrill Gillette outside a Philadelphia restaurant; victim was shot multiple times and seven fired cartridges recovered.
- Several eyewitnesses initially gave written statements and a photo ID implicating Britt; at trial some recanted or claimed coercion; surveillance video placed some witnesses inside the restaurant and excluded two initial suspects.
- Britt was arrested ~2 years later, tried in July 2011, convicted of first‑degree murder, PIC, carrying an unlicensed firearm, and later found guilty of persons not to possess a firearm; sentenced to life plus 5–10 years.
- Prior to trial Britt filed a pro se motion seeking a continuance and new counsel, alleging appointed counsel met him only once 18 months before trial, failed to investigate or interview witnesses (including an alibi), and had disciplinary issues.
- The trial court denied the pro se motion after in‑court inquiry where counsel stated he was prepared and had met with Britt and pursued investigation; counsel proceeded to trial and Britt did not testify.
- On appeal Britt argued he was constructively denied counsel (per se ineffectiveness) under Cronic and Powell; the Commonwealth and court treated the claim as non‑record‑based ineffective assistance that must be raised in PCRA unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Britt was constructively denied counsel such that prejudice is presumed (per se ineffectiveness) | Britt: counsel’s long pretrial noncommunication, lack of investigation, and disciplinary history meant constructive denial of counsel requiring Cronic relief | Commonwealth: no per se deprivation; errors are Strickland‑type and must be raised in PCRA absent waiver or exceptional circumstances | Court: Denied per se relief; counsel not shown to have entirely failed to subject prosecution to adversarial testing; claim should be raised in PCRA (no exceptional circumstances shown) |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying Britt’s pro se continuance/new‑counsel motion | Britt: trial court failed to meaningfully inquire into counsel’s readiness and should have granted continuance | Commonwealth: trial court properly inquired, counsel stated readiness, and denial was within discretion | Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court sufficiently inquired and denial was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Cronic v. United States, 466 U.S. 648 (presumption of prejudice in extremely limited circumstances where counsel is denied or fails to test prosecution)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance requires showing deficient performance and prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Brooks, 839 A.2d 245 (Pa. 2003) (trial counsel’s near‑complete failure to meet client implicated severe counsel breakdown; discussed standards)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (PCRA review required for most ineffective assistance claims unless exceptional circumstances or waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Reaves, 923 A.2d 1119 (Pa. 2007) (describing when per se ineffectiveness under Cronic applies in Pennsylvania)