Commonwealth v. Hannibal, S., Aplt.
2016 Pa. LEXIS 2663
| Pa. | 2016Background
- In 1992 Sheldon Hannibal and a codefendant robbed and pistol-whipped Peter LaCourt; LaCourt was shot and killed. Witness Tanesha Robinson identified Hannibal; she later was murdered along with two other women in an apparent execution.
- Hannibal was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death; this Court affirmed on direct appeal in 2000.
- Hannibal filed a PCRA petition alleging numerous claims, including trial/appellate counsel ineffectiveness, Brady violations, Sixth Amendment violations from a jailhouse informant (James Buigi), and failure to present mental-health mitigation evidence.
- The PCRA court conducted an evidentiary hearing limited to the layered claim that counsel failed to investigate/present neuropsychological mitigation; competing experts disputed whether Hannibal had organic brain damage or only low-average intelligence.
- The PCRA court credited the Commonwealth’s expert, rejected Hannibal’s layered Strickland claims for lack of prejudice (and many claims as waived or previously litigated), and denied relief; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hannibal) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial/appellate counsel ineffective for failing to investigate/present neuropsychological mitigation | Counsel should have pursued testing and presented evidence of organic brain damage/low IQ as (e)(8) mitigation; prejudice would likely change at least one juror’s vote | Records were available; experts disputed diagnosis; PCRA court credited Commonwealth expert and found no reasonable probability of different outcome | Denied: court found arguable merit but no prejudice; credibility credited Commonwealth expert; no Strickland/Pierce relief |
| Brady/impeachment: failure to disclose prison housing records and Buigi aliases/crimen falsi | Suppressed PICC housing records and Buigi’s juvenile/adult records would impeach Buigi and could change verdict/sentence; appellate counsel ineffective for not obtaining them | Records were not shown to be in Commonwealth possession, were available to defense, contained errors, and juvenile adjudications were inadmissible at trial for impeachment then | Denied: claims waived/previously litigated or lacked merit; no Brady where defense could obtain records; juvenile records inadmissible at that time |
| Sixth Amendment: Buigi acted as government agent/interrogated Hannibal while right to counsel attached | Buigi solicited incriminating statements in exchange for leniency and was agent for police; counsel ineffective for not suppressing his testimony | Record shows Buigi initiated contact with police only after learning facts; no evidence he acted under government direction to elicit statements; no promises of leniency pre-interview | Denied: claim waived and meritless—no record support Buigi was a government agent or that statements were deliberately elicited |
| Jury instruction on specific intent and accomplice liability | Instruction allowed conviction if either Hannibal or codefendant had specific intent to kill, potentially lessening Commonwealth’s burden; appellate counsel ineffective for not arguing due process overlay | Instruction conformed to Pennsylvania precedent (Huffman); this Court previously rejected the claim on direct appeal | Denied: issue previously litigated and meritless; no ineffective assistance shown |
| Admission of evidence linking Hannibal to Robinson murder (other-bad-acts) | Evidence was unreliable (based on Buigi) and highly prejudicial; counsel ineffective for failing to exclude it; new affidavits/recantations raise Brady/newly discovered evidence | Evidence was admissible to show consciousness of guilt; recantations/affidavits are unreliable or were in the record of codefendant’s case; claims largely previously litigated or waived | Denied: previously litigated on direct appeal; PCRA court also rejected newly discovered evidence and Brady assertions as unsupported |
| Joint penalty proceedings / individualized sentencing | Joint penalty hearing with codefendant injected non-statutory aggravation and impeded individualized sentencing; counsel ineffective for not seeking severance | Pennsylvania law permits joint penalty phases; jury was instructed to consider each defendant separately; no constitutional right to separate hearings | Denied: joinder permissible; no prejudice shown; juries presumed to follow instructions |
| Simmons instruction (life = no parole) | Counsel ineffective for failing to request jury be told life means no parole when prosecution argued future dangerousness | Simmons decision post-dated trial; Pennsylvania law then prohibited informing jury that life=life without parole; counsel not ineffective for failing to anticipate Simmons | Denied: not ineffective—Simmons was not controlling at trial time |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution duty to disclose exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (deferring many ineffectiveness claims to collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (Pennsylvania formulation of Strickland elements)
- Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994) (in limited circumstances jury entitled to instruction that life means no parole)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (Eighth Amendment bars execution of intellectually disabled defendants)
- Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014) (standards for assessing intellectual disability under Eighth Amendment)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 616 Pa. 164, 47 A.3d 63 (2012) (standards of review for PCRA proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Lassiter, 554 Pa. 586, 722 A.2d 657 (1998) (holding (d)(6) aggravator applies to principals, not accomplices)