Commonwealth v. Reyes-Rodriguez
111 A.3d 775
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Alfredo Reyes-Rodriguez was convicted after a bench trial/jury verdict for multiple sex‑abuse offenses against three minor half‑sisters, sentenced to an aggregate 14½ to 29 years’ imprisonment. He denied the allegations at trial.
- Three neighbors testified for the defense that Reyes‑Rodriguez had a reputation as a "good father." Trial counsel did not elicit testimony about other character traits (e.g., nonviolence, chastity) and did not request a Neely instruction that evidence of good character alone can raise a reasonable doubt.
- Victim testimony included alleged abuse that occurred outside Northampton County; no contemporaneous objections were lodged at trial.
- Reyes‑Rodriguez filed a pro se PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (IAC) on several grounds; the PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief. A divided Superior Court panel initially reversed, but the en banc Superior Court affirmed the PCRA denial.
- The en banc court reviewed IAC claims under Pennsylvania’s Pierce test (arguable merit; no reasonable basis for counsel’s conduct; resulting prejudice) and found Reyes‑Rodriguez failed to prove lack of reasonable basis or prejudice for multiple claimed failures by counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reyes‑Rodriguez) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to object to victims’ testimony about abuse outside Northampton County | Extraterritorial testimony was irrelevant/prejudicial; counsel was ineffective for not objecting | Claim framed as trial‑court error and is waived at PCRA; no development of Pierce prongs | Denied — claim procedurally deficient and appellant failed to develop reasonable‑basis/prejudice arguments |
| 2. Trial counsel elicited only "good father" reputation; omitted other character traits | Counsel should have presented reputation for nonviolence, peaceableness, chastity, good moral character, etc. | Additional trait testimony would be cumulative; appellant produced no PCRA evidence showing what other witnesses would have said | Denied — appellant failed to prove prejudice or what additional testimony would have shown |
| 3. Failure to request Neely jury instruction (that character evidence alone may create reasonable doubt) | Court should have been instructed per Neely; omission prejudiced defendant | No evidence at PCRA hearing on counsel’s strategy; failure to question trial counsel about the decision; no showing of lack of reasonable basis or prejudice | Denied — appellant did not meet Pierce burden; no record evidence counsel lacked a reasonable basis |
| 4. Failure to preserve challenge to consecutive sentencing | Counsel should have preserved/exhausted challenge to consecutive sentences | Consecutive sentences are within sentencing discretion; appellant failed to raise a substantial question on direct appeal; PCRA record shows sentencing judge imposed consecutive terms because there were three separate victims | Denied — claim lacks arguable merit; appellant cannot show prejudice or unreasonable basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two‑prong standard for IAC)
- Burt v. Titlow, 134 S. Ct. 10 (2013) (reaffirming strong presumption counsel’s decisions are reasonable)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (Pennsylvania three‑part test for IAC)
- Commonwealth v. Neely, 561 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1989) (requires instruction that good‑character evidence alone may raise reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Weiss, 81 A.3d 767 (Pa. 2013) (IAC claim rejected where petitioner failed to question trial counsel at PCRA hearing about strategy)
- Commonwealth v. Baumhammers, 92 A.3d 708 (Pa. 2014) (reiterating Pierce burden)