Commonwealth v. Rykard
55 A.3d 1177
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellant Ernest Wesley Rykard was convicted of felony murder for an execution-style killing during a plan to rob Shawn Hutchinson of crack cocaine.
- Following direct appeal denials, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal; related state cases are cited.
- Appellant filed a pro se post-conviction petition on October 25, 2010; PCRA counsel was appointed and later sought withdrawal under Turner/Finley with a no-merit letter.
- PCRA court prepared a dismissal with notice; Appellant responded, raising ineffective assistance claims against PCRA counsel and additional issues.
- Court remanded to determine counsel status; ultimately held that Turner/Finley review and the resulting no-merit letter were proper, and denied relief, with final order affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was PCRA dismissal proper under Turner/Finley? | Rykard argues PCRA counsel failed to address all pro se issues and withdrawal was improper. | Commonwealth asserts Turner/Finley complied; court independently reviewed and found no merit. | No error; dismissal proper. |
| Did PCRA counsel's effectiveness claims merit relief? | Counsel failed to investigate and raise all meritorious issues and to independently review the record. | Record shows counsel addressed pro se and one extra issue; no merit to allegations. | No relief; claims meritless. |
| Were Brady-related claims preserved and meritorious? | Witnesses had tacit deals not disclosed; trial/PCRA counsel ineffective for not pursuing. | Some witnesses waived; Rakita's testimony showed motive; issues lacking merit. | No relief; Brady claims fail. |
| Are new non-PCRA-counsel ineffectiveness claims raised in response to Rule 907 review serial petitions? | Appellant preserved claims in response to pre-dismissal notice. | Response to dismissal is not a second petition; amendments require leave. | Response not a second petition; issues properly addressed; no relief. |
| Did trial counsel's performance or other issues warrant relief? | New trial/appeal issues were raised beyond pro se petition. | Claims insufficiently developed; not raised with proper leave to amend. | No relief; claims waived or meritless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard for reviewing PCRA orders; de novo on legal conclusions)
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 603 Pa. 1 (2009) (PCRA counsel ineffectiveness preserved when responding to dismissal; serial petition concerns)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 557 Pa. 207 (1999) (pre-dismissal notice response; need for leave to amend)
- Commonwealth v. Widgins, 29 A.3d 816 (Pa. Super. 2011) (additional procedural requirements after Friend; review of Turner/Finley)
- Commonwealth v. Lawson, Lawson, 519 Pa. 504 (1988) (repetition of post-conviction petitions; miscarriage of justice standard for second petitions)