Commonwealth v. Henkel
90 A.3d 16
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Henkel was convicted after a joint trial of second-degree murder, kidnapping, conspiracy, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault for abducting and torturing Brownlee and Jones; Jones was killed by Elias during the episode; the three co-defendants were part of a shared drug enterprise operating from 220 Sycamore Street, where drugs and money were stored in safes.
- On March 22, 2002, safes were stolen; Henkel, Elias, Lischner, Brownlee, and Jones confronted suspects at Sycamore Street, where Brownlee and Jones were bound and interrogated for hours while interrogators demanded safes’ location.
- Jones was killed; Brownlee and Jones were transported and eventually disposed of, with Jones’ body weighed down and dumped after two defendants conspired and broke ties with the victims.
- Immunity for Matthew Henkel compelled him to testify against Henkel and the others; his credibility was challenged, and Appellant chose not to testify at trial after a thorough colloquy.
- Appellant pursued post-conviction relief (PCRA) arguing eleven ineffectiveness claims against trial and PCRA counsel; the PCRA court denied relief, and the Superior Court affirmed, consolidating related petitions and en banc review to address whether PCRA counsel could be challenged for raising these issues for the first time on appeal.
- Judge Ford Elliott authored the majority decision affirming the denial of PCRA relief; a dissent by Judge Bender would allow review of PCRA-counsel-ineffectiveness claims first raised on appeal, arguing broader authority and conflicting precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for overlooking the defense- or joint-defense claim | Henkel | Henkel's prior PCRA counsel joined co-defendants’ brief but did not present independent evidence of misplaced trial strategy | Unreviewable as a matter of law (PCRA counsel ineffectiveness cannot be raised first on appeal per controlling precedents) |
| Whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to argue Matthew Henkel’s confession could be substantive evidence | Henkel | Direct appeal already rejected the issue; PCRA counsel should have pursued it | Unreviewable/derivative merit was rejected; underlying claim rejected on direct appeal |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain Matthew Henkel’s medical records | Henkel | Mental-health records were privileged and not admissible impeachment material | Lacked arguable merit; privilege not outweighed by cross-examination rights |
| Whether trial counsel erred in failing to object to the prosecution’s mention of prior bad acts and “lifestyle of thuggery” | Henkel | Comment was mere oratorical flair and not prejudicial given proper limiting instructions | No reversible error; insufficient prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jette, 23 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2011) (PCRA counsel ineffectiveness not raised first on appeal; non-precedential dicta on waiver notes)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (PCRA counsel ineffectiveness raised on appeal; language cited in waiver discussions)
- Commonwealth v. Colavita, 993 A.2d 874 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA counsel ineffectiveness may not be raised first on appeal; limits on collateral-review claims)
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (Limits on reviewing PCRA counsel ineffectiveness for first time on appeal; time-bar considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Ligons, 971 A.2d 1125 (Pa. 2009) (Plurality discussions on whether PCRA counsel ineffectiveness may be raised on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Lauro, 819 A.2d 100 (Pa. Super. 2003) (Review of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness under Burrkett line; reviewability considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. 2010) (Authoritative on appellate review of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness when no Rule 907 notice)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (En banc discussion; review limits on PCRA counsel-ineffectiveness claims raised on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Jette, 23 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2011) (Appellate review limits for PCRA issues raised post-PCRA hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (Waiver and reviewability standards for PCRA issues)
- Commonwealth v. Colavita, 993 A.2d 874 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA counsel-ineffectiveness not reviewable on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (Pitts footnotes discuss waiver of PCRA-counsel claims)
- Commonwealth v. Ligons, 971 A.2d 1125 (Pa. 2009) (Ligons on review of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness raised on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, — Pa.— (2013) (No formal mechanism to address PCRA-counsel ineffectiveness on collateral review; discussion of Martinez/Trevino alignment)