Commonwealth v. Johnson
51 A.3d 237
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellant Kevin Johnson was convicted of first-degree murder on February 4, 1988, and sentenced to life imprisonment; Commonwealth sought death penalty but aggravator of endangerment was found not proven.
- Trial counsel (Gallagher) conducted a defense with alibi witnesses and cross-examination, and Appellant testified denying involvement; the defense was ultimately unsuccessful.
- A PCRA petition was filed; after two evidentiary hearings on remand, the PCRA court denied relief on July 15, 2009.
- On appeal, a divided panel initially reversed in 2011 but the en banc court granted reargument; this Court ultimately affirmed denial of relief.
- Appellant argued ineffective assistance of counsel under Brooks and Cronic due to minimal pretrial contact and late, purportedly non-substantive consultation.
- Rule 1925(b) issues were challenged, with emphasis on preservation and waivers; the court held issues were waived or meritless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brooks applies to pretrial contact in capital cases. | Johnson contends counsel’s late, minimal consultation violated Brooks. | Gallagher had substantive preparation despite limited contact and provided effective representation. | No reversal; Brooks not satisfied to require relief. |
| Whether Cronic applies where counsel’s contact was limited but not wholly absent. | Johnson argues Cronic presumes prejudice due to total incompetence or breakdown. | Gallagher’s performance subjected the Commonwealth’s case to meaningful testing; no complete denial. | No relief under Cronic. |
| Whether Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement preserved the issues on appeal. | Appellant preserved issues with a broad statement and intended to prove prejudice. | Rule 1925(b) requires specific, pinpointed issues; many claims were not properly raised. | Waived or meritless; no review on those issues. |
| Whether the PCRA court properly denied relief after applying the Strickland framework. | Counsel’s inadequate pretrial consultations denied Johnson a fair trial and prejudiced the outcome. | Record shows adequate investigation, cross-examination, and defense strategy; no prejudice shown. | Relief denied; no prejudicial error shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brooks, 576 Pa. 332 (Pa. 2003) (capital-defendant counsel must meet with client; one in-person visit not enough)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (presumption of prejudice in complete denial or breakdown of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 (Pa. 1987) (three-part Strickland test for ineffective assistance)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (Rule 1925(b) is a bright-line waiver rule; specificity required)
- Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA denials; credibility findings binding)