Commonwealth v. Brown
161 A.3d 960
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Gregory Brown was convicted of sexual assault for an October 31, 2004 assault on S.L.; acquitted of rape, burglary, and trespass. He testified at trial that sex was consensual in exchange for drugs.
- Physical and testimonial evidence at trial (victim’s distraught state, scratches, rape kit) supported nonconsent; no DNA or seminal fluid from Brown was found.
- At sentencing the court imposed a mandatory minimum 10–20 year term under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714 as a second "crime of violence" based on prior convictions.
- Brown filed a timely PCRA petition raising multiple ineffective-assistance claims (failure to cross-examine the victim about prior sexual-for-drugs encounters; failure to call two witnesses; sentencing-related failures; appellate counsel ineffective).
- The PCRA court dismissed without an evidentiary hearing; Brown appealed. The Superior Court affirmed, finding no arguable merit or prejudice for Brown’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Brown’s Argument | Commonwealth / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA court erred by dismissing without an evidentiary hearing | Brown: factual disputes required a hearing | Court: no genuine material factual disputes; claims lack arguable merit | No error — dismissal proper (no hearing required) |
| Trial counsel ineffective for not cross-examining victim about prior sex-for-drugs history | Brown: cross-exam would have supported consent defense and likely changed the verdict | Court: counsel attacked credibility elsewhere; Brown’s own testimony already asserted the history; physical and witness evidence supported nonconsent | Claim fails — no arguable merit or prejudice |
| Trial counsel ineffective for failing to call Lonnie Crawford and Tonya Feggens | Brown: their testimony would have aided defense | Court: no affidavits/proffers showing willingness/availability; counsel attempted to produce them but they were unavailable | Claim fails — inability to show witness availability or prejudice |
| Sentencing errors (prior burglary not a crime of violence; jail credit start date) | Brown: counsel should have challenged classification and requested earlier credit start date | Court: record showed a prior rape (itself a strike) so § 9714 applied; credit issue undeveloped/waived | Claim fails — no prejudice on § 9714; procedural waiver on credit issue |
| Appellate counsel ineffective for not raising cross-examination issue on direct appeal | Brown: appellate counsel should have included the confrontation claim in Rule 1925(b) | Court: claim inadequately developed; moreover trial counsel never actually cross-examined victim on that subject so appellate review would be unavailable | Claim fails — meritless/undeveloped |
Key Cases Cited
- Pond v. Commonwealth, 846 A.2d 699 (Pa. Super. 2004) (presumption of counsel effectiveness)
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, 868 A.2d 1278 (Pa. Super. 2005) (ineffectiveness standard and burden)
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (third‑prong prejudice and review of ineffectiveness)
- Rivers v. Commonwealth, 786 A.2d 923 (Pa. 2001) (trial strategy deference)
- Birdsong v. Commonwealth, 24 A.3d 319 (Pa. 2011) (requirements for failure‑to‑call‑witness claims)
- Baumhammers v. Commonwealth, 92 A.3d 708 (Pa. 2014) (prejudice and materiality in witness/counsel claims)
- Khalil v. Commonwealth, 806 A.2d 415 (Pa. Super. 2002) (importance of affidavits to prove witness availability)
- Ellis v. Commonwealth, 700 A.2d 948 (Pa. Super. 1997) (waiver from inadequate briefing)