Ralph Suny v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 687 F. App'x 170

Ralph Suny was tried in Pennsylvania for eight burglaries and related conspiracy counts stemming from eight home invasions in 2003; the jury convicted him of several counts including three conspiracy convictions and two burglary convictions.
At trial the court instructed the jury on conspiracy generally but did not explain that one can be guilty of a single conspiracy to commit multiple crimes; trial counsel did not request or object to an instruction about a single conspiracy.
After conviction Suny claimed ineffective assistance for (a) trial counsel’s failure to object to the conspiracy instruction and (b) failure to investigate/present alibi testimony from his mother and aunt.
State courts held an evidentiary hearing on the alibi claim, credited counsel’s testimony that they were unaware of the proffered alibi witnesses, and denied relief; the Superior Court and Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed or denied allowance of appeal.
Suny’s PCRA and later state-court filings were found to have failed to adequately and explicitly raise the specific ineffective-assistance claim about the conspiracy instruction, so that claim was held waived under Pennsylvania procedural rules; the federal district court denied habeas relief and the Third Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jury should have been instructed that multiple charged conspiracies could be a single conspiracy	Suny: evidence supported a single continuous conspiracy; jury should have been instructed on single-conspiracy theory	Commonwealth: state-law instruction issue; trial counsel did not request instruction and state courts handled on waiver grounds	Court: did not reach merits — claim procedurally defaulted/waived under Pennsylvania law and thus unreviewable on federal habeas
Whether trial/appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to request or preserve the single-conspiracy instruction	Suny: counsel’s omission was constitutionally deficient and prejudicial under Strickland	Commonwealth: claim was not properly raised in PCRA petition/brief so waived; no reviewable federal claim	Court: ineffective-assistance contention as to the instruction is procedurally defaulted and merits not considered
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/present alibi witnesses	Suny: counsel ignored or failed to investigate mother and aunt’s alibi testimony	Commonwealth: trial court found counsel credible that they were unaware of those witnesses; strategic choices reasonable	Court: state courts’ credibility findings reasonable under Strickland; no ineffective assistance shown

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (procedural-default exception when collateral-review counsel is ineffective)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (procedural default doctrine on federal habeas review)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA standard of review for state-court adjudications)
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (federal habeas courts should not reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions)
Commonwealth v. Andrews, 768 A.2d 309 (Pa. 2001) (single-conspiracy principle under Pennsylvania law)