Commonwealth v. Medina, 209 A.3d 992

Background

Anthony Medina Jr. was convicted by a jury in 2006 of first-degree murder and related charges based on eyewitness identifications (Alexis Gomez and Marilyn Colon), testimony that he planned the killing and purchased gloves (April Velez), a post-offense admission (Rashaan/Rashaad Washington), and that police found the murder weapon on him at arrest. He received life imprisonment.
On direct appeal and subsequent PCRA litigation, procedural irregularities appear in the certified record but this appeal follows the PCRA court’s August 4, 2017 dismissal of Medina’s timely PCRA petition without a hearing.
In his amended PCRA petition, Medina alleged trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call character witnesses to prove a non-violent reputation and appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising an after-discovered-evidence claim based on a recantation from Washington.
The amended petition included four affidavits from proposed character witnesses; only one resided in Philadelphia and none described community reputation or the specific trait sought to be proved.
The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice; Medina proceeded pro se after a Grazier colloquy; he filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement and the trial court and Superior Court rejected his claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Medina)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / PCRA court)	Held
1. Whether PCRA court’s Rule/Order failed to state Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3)(iv) warning so issues should not be waived	PCRA court order omitted explicit text of Rule 1925(b)(3)(iv); thus waiver under Rule 1925(b)(4)(vii) should not apply	Order substantially complied by warning that failure to comply may be deemed waiver; no relief warranted	Court held the order complied and the waiver argument failed
2. Trial counsel ineffective for failing to call character witnesses to show non-violent reputation	Character witnesses would have supported mistaken-identity defense and undermined eyewitness IDs; counsel should have called them	Affidavits failed to show admissible reputation testimony, most witnesses lived out-of-community, no proof counsel knew them, and even if admissible their testimony would not have overcome strong eyewitness IDs	Court held claim meritless: character testimony likely inadmissible or would not have produced prejudice; no ineffectiveness
3. Appellate counsel ineffective for failing to raise after-discovered evidence/recantation by Washington	Appellate counsel received Washington’s recantation and should have argued after-discovered evidence on direct appeal	Even without Washington’s testimony, other strong evidence (two eyewitnesses, accomplice testimony, weapon on defendant) would sustain conviction; no reasonable probability of different outcome	Court held no prejudice; ineffective-assistance claim fails
4. Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on the PCRA claims	Medina sought a hearing to develop claims	PCRA court may deny a hearing if no genuine issue of material fact or if petitioner not entitled to relief	Court denied hearing because claims lacked merit and would not produce relief

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2015) (five-part test for proving counsel ineffective for failing to call witnesses)
Commonwealth v. Sneed, 45 A.3d 1096 (Pa. 2012) (counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless claims)
Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (ineffectiveness analysis requires satisfying all prongs)
Commonwealth v. Root, 179 A.3d 511 (Pa. Super. 2018) (three-prong test for PCRA ineffective-assistance claims)
Commonwealth v. Radecki, 180 A.3d 441 (Pa. Super. 2018) (requirements for admissible character evidence; reputation testimony only)
Commonwealth v. Carter, 597 A.2d 1156 (Pa. Super. 1991) (circumstances where failure to advise about character witnesses may have arguable merit)
Commonwealth v. Luther, 463 A.2d 1073 (Pa. Super. 1983) (character witnesses may be critical where case hinges on single witness credibility)