Horton, D. v. Bruno, J.
Horton, D. v. Bruno, J. No. 2176 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 3, 2017Background
- Dennis Horton, serving a life sentence for a 1994 second‑degree murder conviction, sued his former PCRA counsel, James S. Bruno, for legal malpractice (assumpsit and trespass), alleging Bruno failed to obtain/subpoena medical records and affidavits that would have supported a PCRA time‑bar exception.
- Bruno represented Horton on a second PCRA petition (2009–2011); the petition was dismissed as untimely and the Superior Court affirmed; Horton later complained to the Disciplinary Board and Bruno was suspended for misconduct unrelatedly admitted in stipulations.
- Horton filed the malpractice suit in 2013 and later sought to amend his complaint to add documents from Bruno’s disciplinary proceedings; he also served broad discovery requests seeking disciplinary files, mental‑health records, and correspondence with co‑defense counsel.
- The trial court denied Horton’s belated amendment (Pa.R.C.P. 1033), denied his motion to compel production of the broad disciplinary and treatment records, and granted Bruno’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court held Horton could not state a breach‑of‑contract claim because Bruno was court‑appointed, and Horton could not satisfy Bailey’s proximate‑cause element for criminal malpractice because Horton could not show ‘‘but for’’ counsel’s conduct he would have obtained an acquittal or dismissal—also the alleged medical evidence did not meet the PCRA "newly discovered facts" exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of motion to amend complaint to add disciplinary stipulations | Horton: court should liberally allow amendment; disciplinary stipulations prove malpractice and damages | Bruno: amendment was untimely and Horton did not obtain consent or leave of court under Pa.R.C.P. 1033 | Denial affirmed—no consent/leave; proposed amendments would not state a viable malpractice claim so amendment properly denied |
| Denial of motion to compel Bruno’s disciplinary, treatment, and related documents | Horton: documents are relevant and prove negligence and proximate cause; Bruno waived objections by late response | Bruno: requests are overbroad, irrelevant; many materials public; some requests implicate privacy/irrelevance | Denial affirmed—trial court did not abuse discretion; requests overbroad and would not produce proof of malpractice or causation |
| Summary judgment on breach of contract claim | Horton: court‑appointed counsel can give rise to contractual claim (relying on Fiorentino) | Bruno: no contract existed because he was court‑appointed; Mississippi authority Moore controls that no employment contract arises with appointed counsel | Summary: breach‑of‑contract claim fails—no contractual relationship with court‑appointed counsel; Fiorentino factually distinguishable |
| Summary judgment on negligence (criminal malpractice) claim | Horton: Bruno’s failure to attach medical evidence caused PCRA denial; causal link exists; argues proximate cause standard should be relaxed to loss of evidentiary hearing | Bruno: even with records petitioner could not satisfy newly discovered facts exception; Horton knew of injury earlier; thus no "but for" causation | Summary: negligence claim fails—under Bailey plaintiff must show counsel’s culpable conduct was proximate cause ("but for" would have obtained acquittal/dismissal); Horton cannot meet that; medical records were a newly willing source for previously known facts so PCRA time‑bar still would fail; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. Tucker, 621 A.2d 108 (Pa. 1993) (elements for criminal legal malpractice including "but for" proximate‑cause requirement)
- Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 812 A.2d 1218 (Pa. 2002) (summary judgment standard)
- Toy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 928 A.2d 186 (Pa. 2007) (view facts and inferences in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Moore v. McComsey, 459 A.2d 841 (Pa. Super. 1983) (no contractual employment relationship between court‑appointed counsel and defendant for breach‑of‑contract claim)
- Fiorentino v. Rappaport, 693 A.2d 208 (Pa. Super. 1997) (distinguishable — involved privately retained counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (elements of PCRA "newly discovered facts" exception)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (focus of PCRA exception is newly discovered facts, not newly discovered sources)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 945 A.2d 185 (Pa. Super. 2008) (newly discovered witness who provides previously known facts does not satisfy exception)
- Estate of Agnew v. Ross, 152 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2017) (standard of review for summary judgment)