Commonwealth v. Walker
110 A.3d 1000
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Victim Joseph Smith was found shot 19 times, bound in a van; he identified Terry Walker as his shooter before dying; blood evidence matched Walker.
- Walker was tried by jury (2007) and convicted of first-degree murder, robbery, and PIC; sentenced to life plus consecutive terms; direct appeal denied.
- Walker filed a timely PCRA petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for advising him not to testify (counsel told him the Commonwealth would impeach him with prior convictions) and for failing to object to prosecutor comments in opening/closing.
- PCRA court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing, finding Walker failed to prove prejudice because his proposed testimony would not have overcome overwhelming evidence.
- Superior Court vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing limited to the claim that counsel improperly advised Walker to waive his right to testify; it rejected the need for a hearing on the prosecutorial-misconduct objection claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Walker) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective by advising Walker not to testify because of alleged risk of impeachment with prior convictions | Counsel told Walker the Commonwealth could impeach him with prior convictions; Walker had no crimen falsi convictions, so advice was incorrect and vitiated a knowing waiver | PCRA court: no prejudice because Walker’s testimony wouldn’t have changed the trial outcome given overwhelming evidence | Vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on this claim; court held prejudice should be assessed under the waiver-focused standard (would the result of the waiver proceeding differ) rather than whether the trial outcome would change |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to prosecutor’s opening remark: "We obviously know that [Appellant] did this." | Walker: remark expressed prosecutor’s personal belief and undermined fair trial | Commonwealth: remark, read in context, summarized evidence and did not express improper personal belief | No hearing required; claim denied — remarks not sufficiently prejudicial |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to closing remark that the victim was killed "over drug money" | Walker: comment injected unsupported motive and implicit other criminality | Commonwealth: evidence supported that the murder was over $1,300 debt; brief reference to drug money did not create unfair prejudice | No hearing required; claim denied — single remark not so prejudicial as to deny fair trial |
| Standard for prejudice when counsel causes defendant to waive a fundamental right (test for relief) | Walker: relied on Nieves to argue counsel’s erroneous advice vitiates waiver | Commonwealth/PCRA court: applied standard asking whether trial outcome would have been different | Court: apply Mallory/Miller approach — prejudice assessed by whether the result of the waiver proceeding would have been different absent counsel’s ineffectiveness; remand for hearing to resolve first two Strickland prongs |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Nieves, 746 A.2d 1102 (Pa. 2000) (counsel’s erroneous advice that prior non-crimen falsi convictions could be used to impeach vitiated defendant’s waiver of right to testify)
- Commonwealth v. Mallory, 941 A.2d 686 (Pa. 2008) (prejudice for waiver of a fundamental right measured by whether the result of the waiver proceeding would differ absent counsel’s ineffectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 987 A.2d 638 (Pa. 2009) (applies Mallory’s waiver-focused prejudice approach)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009) (recitation of Strickland-based three-prong test for PCRA ineffective-assistance claims)
- Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35 (Pa. 2012) (prosecutor may argue forcefully but misconduct requires showing of significant prejudice denying fair trial)
- Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 25 A.3d 277 (Pa. 2011) (review of entire record to assess prejudice where rule violation occurred)