Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 6/8/24 Zak Goldstein 6/8/24

PA Supreme Court: PCRA Court Should Hold Hearing to See if Appointing New Counsel Warranted When Defendant Raises Claims of PCRA Counsel’s Ineffectiveness on Appeal

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Greer, holding that the lower courts erred in requiring an attorney to continue representing the defendant/PCRA petitioner on appeal without first holding a hearing to determine whether the petitioner should have received a new attorney or represented himself for the appeal. In Greer, the defendant submitted pro se filings while the denial of his PCRA petition was on appeal alleging that PCRA counsel, who was still representing him for the appeal, had provided the ineffective assistance of counsel in the PCRA proceedings by failing to raise meritorious claims. The Supreme Court held that before requiring counsel to file a merits brief on the issues he did raise, the lower courts should have held a hearing to determine whether the appointment of new counsel was necessary or alternatively, whether the defendant should be required or allowed to represent himself.

The Facts of Greer

A jury convicted Greer of first-degree murder and carrying a firearm without a license. He appealed to the Superior Court, and the Superior Court affirmed on direct appeal. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied a petition for allowance of appeal.

Following the conclusion of his direct appeals, Greer filed a timely pro se PCRA petition. The court appointed counsel for him, and his court-appointed counsel eventually filed an amended PCRA petition. The PCRA court denied the petition, and counsel filed an appeal on Greer’s behalf.

While the appeal was pending, Greer submitted a request for remand to raise claims that his PCRA counsel provided the ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to raise certain meritorious claims. The Superior Court remanded the case to the PCRA court to address these new claims, but the Commonwealth filed for reconsideration, arguing that the Superior Court should first address the claims which had already been developed by PCRA counsel. The Superior Court then directed counsel to file a merits brief on those issues. The defendant appealed, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted the appeal to decide whether the PCRA court should hold a hearing on who should represent the defendant for appeal or whether the Superior Court properly decided that the claims which had already been developed should be resolved first.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the PCRA court for a hearing on whether the defendant should receive new counsel, represent himself, or continue to be represented by PCRA counsel. The Court ruled that when an appellate court identifies potential ineffectiveness claims against current PCRA counsel, the proper procedure is to remand the case to the PCRA court to determine whether they have potential merit and who should represent the defendant. This remand should include an on-the-record colloquy with the petitioner about their right to counsel, the prohibition of hybrid representation (where the petitioner would partially represent themselves while also having counsel), and how they wish to proceed.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the Superior Court should have remanded the case for a hearing to clarify Greer’s representation status before directing his PCRA counsel to file a merits brief on any of the issues. By forcing PCRA counsel to file a merits brief on the developed issues, the Superior Court inadvertently allowed hybrid representation, which is prohibited and undermines the appellate process. Therefore, the Court remanded for the PCRA court to determine who should represent the petitioner or alternatively, whether he should be allowed to proceed pro se.

Ultimately, this case resolves a complicated procedural issue that will not arise in every case, but it does show that the appellate courts have become much better about providing protections to ensure that PCRA petitioners receive the effective assistance of counsel. Previously, there was no meaningful way for a petitioner to challenge the ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel in state court. These claims would have to be raised in federal court by filing a federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Now, however, a PCRA petitioner may retain new counsel or ask for new court appointed counsel and raise those issues on appeal of the denial of a PCRA petition if they can identify legitimate issues of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 5/9/24 Zak Goldstein 5/9/24

PA Superior Court Finds Yet Another Lawyer Ineffective for Failing to Present Character Evidence at Trial

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Alceus, finding trial counsel ineffective and granting the defendant a new trial because trial counsel failed to call character witnesses to testify to the defendant’s excellent reputation in the community for non-violence. The law is clear in Pennsylvania: trial attorneys must investigate and call character witnesses to testify where such witnesses are available unless the attorney has a legitimate, genuinely strategic reason for deciding not to do so. Particularly in he-said/she-said assault and rape cases, the appellate courts are very likely to find counsel who fails to call character witnesses ineffective and reverse criminal convictions.

The Facts of Alceus

The defendant in this case was convicted of aggravated assault and endangering the welfare of child. The complainant, his wife, was pregnant at the time of the incident. She claimed that she tried to leave him. During that process, she was staying at her mother’s apartment with her five children when the defendant broke into the apartment, verbally and physically assaulted her in front of the children, and inflicted severe injuries. She went to the hospital after he left.

She received medical treatment at the hospital, and the hospital called the police. The police interviewed one of the older children who did not disclose seeing any violence. Nonetheless, the police arrested the defendant, and the Commonwealth charged him with aggravated assault and related charges. The complainant testified at trial, and the Commonwealth introduced the testimony of police and medical witnesses as well as medical records which corroborated her claims.

The jury convicted the defendant of multiple counts, and the trial court sentenced him to seven to fourteen years of incarceration followed by six years of probation. Notably, the Commonwealth presented no other eyewitnesses to the alleged assault. The defendant testified and denied having committed it. He claimed that he had been at the casino with his friend and had not seen the complainant that evening. He did not know who had injured her. None of the children testified, so although the complainant in fact had injuries, this was a he-said/she-said case in which the complainant said the defendant assaulted her and the defendant said he did not assault her. The defense attorney did not call character witnesses to testify to his client’s reputation for non-violence even though the defendant had no violent convictions.

The PCRA Petition

The defendant appealed his conviction to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and the Superior Court denied the appeal. He then filed a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition in the trial court. In the petition, he alleged that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial lawyer failed to speak with and call witnesses to testify who would have testified that he had an excellent reputation in the community for being a peaceful, non-violent person. He argued that this evidence would have raised a reasonable doubt given the lack of any evidence other than the testimony of the complainant that he was in fact the one who committed the assault, assuming someone committed an assault.

The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing. Trial counsel testified that he did not investigate whether his client could have presented character witnesses because he thought character testimony would confuse the jury. He wanted the jury to instead focus on the lack of investigation by the police and the fact that one of the children had told the police that nothing happened when interviewed. Obviously, calling the character witnesses to testify would not have prevented counsel from doing any of this. The potential witnesses also testified at the hearing that the defendant had an excellent reputation for non-violence and that they would have been willing to testify at trial but the lawyer did not ask them to. The defendant also testified that he asked his lawyer to call the witnesses. He was surprised when the lawyer failed to do so.

The PCRA court denied the petition. It found that trial counsel’s decision not to present character witnesses was somehow strategic and that the proposed character witnesses were not credible because their testimony was not consistent with the evidence presented at trial. The defendant appealed.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

The Superior Court reversed. It cited a long line of case law dating back more than a century to show that character witness is extremely important. Character evidence alone may be the basis for a reasonable doubt, and a defendant who presents character evidence is entitled to jury instruction informing the jury that character evidence may provide reasonable doubt even if the other evidence is believed and compelling. Trial counsel’s claimed strategy made no sense; if his goal was to show that the complainant was lying, then presenting character witnesses on the defendant’s behalf would have only strengthened that claim rather than confusing the jury. And the PCRA court failed to provide any explanation for why it believed the character witnesses were not credible. The fact that the Commonwealth presented evidence at trial had absolutely no bearing on whether the witnesses were credible as to the defendant’s reputation. Of course, the Commonwealth always presents evidence at trial. The evidence may not be true or compelling, but if the Commonwealth had no evidence, there would be no trial. The fact that the Commonwealth has evidence makes presenting character witnesses even more important.

This case illustrates the requirement that defense attorneys must present character evidence at trial for clients who have no criminal record or criminal records which are not relevant to the charges at issue in the case unless they have a very good reason for not doing so. Such reasons could include the possibility that the witnesses could be impeached with a relevant criminal record. For example, a defendant charged with a violent crime who offers character evidence of a reputation for non-violence could see the witnesses impeached with evidence of his prior violent convictions. But non-violent convictions would not be relevant. Further, trial counsel would not be ineffective for failing to call witnesses if the witnesses do not exist and no one is willing to testify on the defendant’s behalf or if the Commonwealth may be able to present credible rebuttal witnesses who would testify that the defendant actually has a bad reputation. Whether the Commonwealth may call police officers to do so, however, is debatable and should be challenged.

Each case is different, but in most cases where the defendant has no criminal history or no history of crimes involving the relevant character trait, the defense attorney should call character witnesses and is likely providing the ineffective assistance of counsel if they fail to do so. It is also clear that under Pennsylvania law, character witnesses may be only be impeached with evidence of criminal convictions for the relevant trait; they may not be impeached with arrests that did not end in convictions or uncharged bad conduct. Excuses such as local jurors do not understand or value character evidence, character evidence is confusing, or family and friends are not valuable character witnesses will not protect an attorney from ineffective assistance claims.

In this case, the Superior Court found the defendant suffered prejudice from trial counsel’s failure to call character witnesses. This was a he-said/she-said case where no one else testified that the defendant committed the crimes charged. Had the witnesses testified on his behalf, the verdict might have been different. Accordingly, the Superior Court granted him a new trial.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Read the opinion

Zak Goldstein 4/13/24 Zak Goldstein 4/13/24

PA Superior Court: Defendant May Be Ordered to Remove Non-Prescription Glasses During Trial

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth. v. Ellis, holding that the trial court did not violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights by ordering him to remove his non-prescription glasses during trial. The Court found that the trial court’s order did not require the defendant to testify or give evidence against himself. The Superior Court also found sufficient evidence to affirm the conviction for murder.

The Facts of Ellis

In Ellis, the defendant was charged with attempting to rob a gas station in York, Pennsylvania. Prosecutors alleged that he shot and killed the gas station attendant during the attempted robbery. The shooting was captured by the gas station’s surveillance cameras, but the footage was too blurry to clearly identify the defendant from his face. Two ex-girlfriends, however, testified that they recognized the person on the camera footage as the defendant based on his distinctive coat, sneakers, and build. He also got rid of the clothes and the murder weapon by throwing those items in the river, he shaved his facial hair, and he attempted to wear non-prescription glasses at trial. The jury could not reach a verdict at the first trial, so the trial resulted in a mistrial. Prosecutors retried the defendant, and he was convicted.

During the second trial, the defendant attempted to wear non-prescription glasses. The trial court ordered him to remove the glasses so the jurors could better see his face, and the defense objected. The defense argued that requiring him to remove the glasses was the same as requiring him to testify against himself or give evidence against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The trial court overruled the objection and required him to remove his glasses. The jury ultimately convicted, and the defendant appealed.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

The Superior Court affirmed the conviction. First, with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence claim, the Court concluded that the combination of surveillance footage, witness testimony, and Ellis’s own actions in getting rid of his clothes and gun after the murder established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, with respect to the Fifth Amendment issue, the court found that the removal of the glasses did not constitute testimonial evidence and thus did not violate his rights. The Court reasoned that that physical or demonstrative evidence, such as appearance alterations, did not fall under the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. The defendant was not required to testify or say anything to incriminate himself; he was only required to show the jury his face without fake glasses on it. The Court found that this action was not protected by the Fifth Amendment.

The Takeaway

This case is not particularly controversial, but it does show the impact that getting rid of evidence or a defendant attempting to change their appearance can have at trial. Getting rid of clothing and a weapon made the defendant look particularly guilty, and insisting on wearing fake glasses likely did not help his case, either. In these types of cases, the Commonwealth can actually seek a jury instruction under which the trial judge will instruct the jury that the destruction of evidence or decision to change one’s appearance can be considered as evidence of guilt against the defendant. Further, the Fifth Amendment generally only protects a defendant from having to speak with the police or testify; it does not allow a defendant to shield their appearance from the view of the jurors.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Zak Goldstein 3/21/24 Zak Goldstein 3/21/24

PA Superior Court: Police Do Not Need a Search Warrant to Get Parolee’s GPS Monitoring Data

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Rosendary, holding that the police do not need a search warrant to get a parolee’s GPS monitoring data from parole agents so long as the parolee was already on GPS monitoring for reasons unrelated to the investigation of the new crime. In this case, the defendant’s GPS monitor put him at the scene of the crime, but the police had obtained that data without getting a search warrant for it. The Superior Court, however, rejected Rosendary’s arguments that the evidence should be suppressed, finding that police do not need a search warrant to get this type of data from parole agents and that the police did not use the parole agents as “stalking horses” for the police investigation.

The Facts of Rosendary

The defendant was on parole for a robbery conviction. As part of his parole, he was eventually placed on GPS monitoring. He signed a consent form agreeing to the monitoring. He did not have much of a choice, though, as the alternative to GPS monitoring would have been incarceration. The police subsequently arrested him and charged him with another robbery. At his trial, the Commonwealth introduced evidence from his parole GPS ankle monitor which incriminated him by putting him at the crime scene.

Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress the GPS data. He argued that the police should have obtained a search warrant in order to get the GPS information from his parole agent and that alternatively, the parole agent had worked as a “stalking horse” for the police in order to evade the warrant requirement. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and the defendant appealed.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

The Pennsylvania Superior Court denied the appeal. First, it rejected the defendant’s argument that the police violated the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement by getting the GPS data without a search warrant. Although the police ordinarily need a search warrant in order to get GPS location data for a suspect, the Court held that they did not need to get a search warrant in this case. Specifically, the defendant had a diminished expectation of privacy in his GPS data because he was on parole, he had agreed to wear the monitor in lieu of incarceration, and he knew that the data would be shared with his parole agent. Thus, he had no reasonable expectation that the data would be kept private, and he had agreed to wear the ankle monitor. Therefore, law enforcement did not need a search warrant to get the data. Further, the parole agent had not shared unlimited data with the police. Instead, the parole agent had shared only the location data for where the defendant was at the time of his suspected involvement in the robbery. The Court found that this was not a significant intrusion into his privacy because the data shared was limited in time and scope.

The Court also rejected the defendant’s stalking horse challenge. Under the stalking horse doctrine, the police may not take advantage of a suspect’s status as a probationer or parolee to avoid the warrant requirement. In other words, the police may not ask probation or parole to conduct a warrantless search for the purpose of finding evidence related to a police investigation. Instead, the police should get a warrant. For example, if a defendant could show that the police had asked a probation officer to conduct a search of the defendant’s house to look for evidence because the police suspected the defendant of a crime, then that search could potentially violate the stalking horse doctrine and require suppression of the evidence. Here, however, the defendant introduced no evidence that the police had directed the search or directed parole to put the defendant on GPS monitoring. He was already on GPS monitoring, and the police simply requested the data from his parole agent. As he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data, the parole agent was free to share this information with the police.

The Takeaway

This result is not particularly surprising. It is usually not possible to suppress evidence that was shared with the public as suppression requires a reasonable expectation of privacy. A probationer or parolee who is subject to GPS monitoring has no real reason to believe that the evidence would be kept private, so courts are generally not going to suppress it.

As a general rule, it’s best not to commit new crimes while wearing a probation or parole GPS tracking device. The evidence will likely be admissible in court, and the police will not be required to get a search warrant for the evidence. There is still the possibility of challenging the collection of this type of evidence should the defendant be able to show that probation or parole improperly conducted a search at the request of the police and that the police may not have otherwise had the authority to conduct such a search, but that type of violation is often difficult to prove.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case? We can help.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.