Title: Com. v. McKenna

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

498 Pa. 416 (1982) 446 A.2d 1274 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Gerard Paul McKENNA, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted October 19, 1981. Argued April 20, 1982. Decided June 30, 1982. Reconsideration Granted March 15, 1982. *417 William C. Costopoulos, Lemoyne, for appellant. Arthur R. Shuman, Jr., Sp. Prosecutor, Philadelphia, for appellee. *418 Before O'BRIEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, NIX, LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT and HUTCHINSON, JJ. McDERMOTT, Justice. This is an appeal from the order of the Honorable Evan S. Williams, President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County, denying appellant relief under the Post Conviction Hearing Act ("PCHA").[1] On December 9, 1974, after a lengthy jury trial, appellant, Gerard Paul McKenna, was convicted of rape and first degree murder in connection with the brutal slaying of a sixteen year-old girl. The jury prescribed the death penalty for appellant's murder conviction.[2] On direct appeal to this Court, we upheld both convictions, but vacated appellant's death sentence and remanded the case for resentencing on the murder conviction. See Commonwealth v. McKenna, 476 Pa. 428, 383 A.2d 174 (1978) ("McKenna I"). Appellant was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment for his first degree murder conviction on April 17, 1978. These PCHA proceedings followed. Post conviction hearings were held on August 21 and October 3, 1979. The court of common pleas, per President Judge Williams, denied the requested relief and appellant appealed to this Court. The Commonwealth and appellant submitted the case on their briefs,[3] and, on January 29, 1982, we filed an opinion and order reversing the PCHA court. We subsequently granted the Commonwealth's petition for reconsideration and, on April 2, 1982, we ordered that the parties prepare the case for oral argument during our April session. See Pa.R.A.P. 2311(b). Having carefully considered the entire record, the briefs and the able oral arguments *419 of both sides, we now vacate our order of January 29, 1982 and affirm the order of the PCHA court.[4] Before this Court appellant most strenuously argues his claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present a material and favorable defense. The gravamen of this contention is that trial counsel had material witnesses to offer in support of appellant's alibi defense but did not call them, because he believed a new trial would be granted on appeal.[5] At the PCHA hearing, appellant's chief trial counsel, Thomas Walrath, Esquire,[6] did in fact testify that he believed the errors of the trial court sufficient to require a new trial and that he had, therefore, substantially abandoned the alibi defense.[7]See generally, N.T. PCHA 8/21/79 *420 pp. 60-80. We shall refrain from comment, for the purposes here, upon such unprofessional conduct, as there is no merit to appellant's contentions. Defense counsel Walrath testified that, if he had fully presented the alibi defense, he would have called Dr. Irving Sopher, the defense's forensic pathologist, to fix the time of death, a consideration relevant to the alibi. Dr. Sopher was called at the PCHA hearing, not by appellant, but by the Commonwealth, and he testified as follows: N.T. 10/3/79 pp. 83, 96 (emphasis supplied). The PCHA court, which heard all the evidence, expressly credited Dr. Sopher's assertion that his testimony would have merely corroborated the Commonwealth's position. Opinion of Williams, P.J., at 6. (Opinion filed April 22, 1980). Not only would Dr. Sopher have fortified the Commonwealth at trial, but he specifically contradicted Mr. Walrath's PCHA testimony as to the reason he was not called. The soundness of Judge Williams' findings on Dr. Sopher's credibility cannot *421 be faulted by reviewing the synthetic testimony of Mr. Walrath.[8] The same note of artificiality pervades Mr. Walrath's testimony concerning the contention that there were other exculpatory witnesses who might have been called, including appellant himself, State Trooper John P. George, Deputy Coroner Arthur B. King and "five or six other witnesses" whom Mr. Walrath was unable to identify. N.T. PCHA 8/21/79 P. 59; N.T. PCHA 10/3/79 pp. 20-23. None of these allegedly exculpatory witnesses was ever produced by appellant during the PCHA proceedings. Appellant has utterly failed to sustain his burden of proving that the testimony of the witnesses would have strengthened the defense. See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 292 Pa. 633, 435 A.2d 255 (1981); Commonwealth v. Pettus, 492 Pa. 558, 424 A.2d 1332 (1981). In fact, as the PCHA court noted, what evidence there was indicated that the testimony of the allegedly favorable witnesses would have had a harmful effect or no effect at all on the defense.[9] *422 Appellant cannot meet his burden of proof in a PCHA proceeding with the bare assertion by trial counsel that the defense might have been handled differently or that an unsubstantiated defense was not fully presented. See Commonwealth v. Pettus, 492 Pa. at 563, 424 A.2d at 1335; Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 235 A.2d 349 (1967). The lower court properly looked beyond the self-serving statements of appellant and trial counsel, to ascertain if there was any substance to appellant's claim. A thorough review of the evidence presented in the PCHA hearings demonstrates, as the PCHA court explicitly held, appellant's "alleged withheld defense is really no defense at all and trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to present the same." Opinion of Williams, P.J., at 6 (Opinion filed April 22, 1980). See Commonwealth v. Pettus, 492 Pa. at 563, 424 A.2d at 1335; Commonwealth v. Giknis, 491 Pa. 215, 420 A.2d 419 (1980). Appellant is thus not entitled to relief on his unsupported claim that he was deprived of a material and favorable defense through the ineffectiveness of trial counsel. His contention is without merit simply because, as the record shows and the PCHA court held, the evidence trial counsel deliberately withheld was best left in the closet. Appellant's second contention is that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to file a motion to dismiss the indictments under Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100, which, at the time appellant was charged, required that trial commence within 270 days of the initiation of a criminal prosecution. In the instant case, the criminal complaint charging appellant with rape and murder was filed on November 20, 1973. At that time, however, appellant was in the custody of New York State authorities, to whom he had surrendered in connection with an assault, which had occurred in New York prior to the events leading to the instant prosecution. The trial court expressly held that appellant was unavailable to Pennsylvania authorities until July 9, 1974, when he consented to extradition after apparently pleading guilty to the New York charges. Due to appellant's unavailability, the period *423 for Rule 1100 computation did not begin until July 9, 1974. See Commonwealth v. Morgan, 484 Pa. 117, 398 A.2d 972 (1979); Commonwealth v. Cohen, 481 Pa. 349, 392 A.2d 1327 (1979); Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 472 Pa. 553, 372 A.2d 826 (1977); Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(d). Appellant's trial, which began on November 18, 1974, was well within the 270 day period mandated by Rule 1100. Appellant thus cannot prevail on his Rule 1100 claim. Appellant next attacks his trial counsel's failure to object to allegedly inflammatory remarks made by the prosecutor. Appellant is entitled to no relief on this claim because it was addressed by this Court on appellant's direct appeal. The very same remarks challenged here were raised in part IX of appellant's direct appeal brief. See Appellant's Direct Appeal Brief at 125-128. There can be no doubt that this Court considered and rejected the claim: McKenna I, 476 Pa. at 431, 383 A.2d at 176.[10] Appellant cannot seek further review through these PCHA proceedings of a claim which has been fully and finally litigated. Commonwealth v. Slavik, 449 Pa. 424, 297 A.2d 920 (1972). See also, Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 15, 83 S. Ct. 1068, 1077, 10 L. Ed. 2d 148 (1963). *424 Appellant's final claim is that a new trial is required due to evidence discovered after his original trial. Appellant contended at the PCHA hearing that he could produce two witnesses who would testify that a Commonwealth witness had partially recanted his trial testimony in their presence. A third witness would have stated that he had seen a blouse similar to the victim's near where the same Commonwealth witness had been staying. The PCHA court refused to allow this impeachment testimony on the grounds that the allegedly recanting Commonwealth witness had not been shown to be unavailable.[11] The PCHA court correctly recognized that appellant's proffered testimony would not have passed muster under the three-pronged test articulated by this Court for after-discovered evidence: Commonwealth v. Schuck, 401 Pa. 222, 229, 164 A.2d 13, 17 (1960), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 884, 82 S. Ct. 138, 7 L. Ed. 2d 188 (1961). See also Commonwealth v. Swanson, 432 Pa. 293, 248 A.2d 12 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 949, 89 S. Ct. 1287, 22 L. Ed. 2d 483 (1969). Appellant thus is not entitled to a new trial on the grounds of after-discovered evidence. We have considered fully appellant's arguments and have reviewed thoroughly the record of these proceedings. We find that none of appellant's claims warrant the grant of a new trial. Accordingly, we vacate our order of January 29, 1982 and affirm the order of the PCHA court. ROBERTS, J., files a dissenting opinion, in which O'BRIEN, C.J., joins. FLAHERTY, J., files a dissenting opinion. *425 ROBERTS, Justice, dissenting. Trial counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's prejudicial closing argument requires that appellant be granted a new trial. In his closing, the prosecutor said to the jury: This prosecutorial tactic, of directing the jury's attention to the rear of the courtroom to await the "arrival" of the deceased victim, is perhaps the most offensive tactic which has been subject to this Court's review over the past decade. This tactic has necessitated the vacation of numerable judgments of sentence. E.g., Commonwealth v. Cronin, 464 Pa. 138, 346 A.2d 59 (1978); Commonwealth v. Lark, 460 Pa. 399, 333 A.2d 786 (1975). See Commonwealth v. Lipscomb, 455 Pa. 525, 317 A.2d 205 (1974). Moreover, it is a tactic which this Court has repeatedly held to be so inherently prejudicial as to require defense objection. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Black, 480 Pa. 394, 390 A.2d 750 (1978); Commonwealth v. Evans, 479 Pa. 100, 387 A.2d 854 (1978). "Trial counsel could not have had a reasonable basis designed to effectuate [his client's] interests when he failed to object to [these] prejudicial and inflammatory remarks." Commonwealth v. Black, supra, 480 Pa. at 397, 390 A.2d at 750. Despite appellant's entitlement to relief, the majority deems appellant's contention "finally litigated" solely on the basis of the following passage from the Opinion of the Court filed upon the disposition of appellant's direct appeal: 476 Pa. 428, 431, 383 A.2d 174, 176 (1978). Although the record establishes that appellant had indeed sought this Court's review of the prosecutor's prejudicial tactic, the *426 record also establishes that appellant had failed to comply with the mandates of Commonwealth v. Clair, 458 Pa. 418, 326 A.2d 272 (1974) (timely objection required to preserve claims of error for appellate review). Thus, when in this case the Opinion of the Court stated that there was "no merit" to appellant's claim of prosecutorial misconduct, it must be concluded that that disposition meant only that appellant could not prevail on the claim because of its improper procedural posture. As in Black and in Evans, where trial counsel failed to interpose objection in the face of an identical prosecutorial tactic, appellant must be granted relief. O'BRIEN, C.J., joins in this dissenting opinion. FLAHERTY, Justice, dissenting. I dissent. Trial counsel is alleged to have been ineffective for failing to present certain testimony favorable to the defense. Specifically, the available, albeit omitted, testimony consisted of, inter alia, the opinion of a forensic pathologist, Dr. Sopher, indicating that no scientific evidence, collected from the victim's body or from the crime scene, identified appellant as having committed the rape and murder in question. The opinion authored by Mr. Justice McDermott omits mention of this, the primary reason to have called Dr. Sopher to testify, and creates the impression that Dr. Sopher would have testified only as to the time of the victim's death. In the PCHA hearing, appellant's trial counsel testified as follows regarding his reasons for not presenting certain witnesses on behalf of the defense. (Emphasis added.) In short, trial counsel decided that the trial was so unfair that any conviction resulting therefrom would be reversed on appeal and that it was, therefore, futile to proceed with a defense directed at achieving an acquittal, which, in view of *429 the errors alleged, counsel perceived to be unattainable. In so doing, however, counsel presumed to know what the effect upon the jury would be of the evidence which he refrained from presenting, thereby denying appellant the benefit of having testimony considered by the jury. This evidence, although perhaps not determinative of guilt, would nevertheless have contributed to the defense's position. Trial counsel articulated no legitimate tactical reason for the failure to present the testimony in question, and counsel provided ineffective representation by, in effect, taking it upon himself to terminate the trial while elevating his judgment to that of an appellate court in evaluating the ramifications of the errors alleged.[1] [1] Act of January 25, 1966, P.L. 1580, § 1 et seq., 19 P.S. § 1180-1 et seq. [2] Appellant was sentenced to a term of ten to twenty years' imprisonment on his rape conviction. [3] See Pa.R.A.P. 2311. [4] Jurisdiction is vested in this Court pursuant to the Judicial Code, Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 586, No. 142, § 2, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 722. This statute was amended subsequent to appellant's conviction, removing this Court's exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from homicide convictions. Act of September 23, 1980, P.L. 686, No. 137, § 1. [5] The record clearly shows that appellant's defense to the rape and murder charges was that he was not in the Bradford County area when the crimes were committed. The time of the victim's death, which the Commonwealth and appellant vigorously disputed, thus became a crucial issue at trial. Appellant contended that the victim was murdered around November 1, 1973, only one day before her body was found. The Commonwealth, on the other hand, presented extensive evidence to show that the victim died on October 28 or 29, 1973, shortly after her family had last seen her and while appellant was still in the vicinity. See generally, Opinion of Williams, P.J., at 4 (Opinion filed October 8, 1975). [6] Mr. Walrath, appellant's private counsel, was appointed by the trial court at appellant's request to represent him in this case. See N.T. PCHA 8/21/79 P. 42. Mr. Walrath was assisted by two other court-appointed attorneys, three special investigators, a professional legal research group and a medical expert. See N.T. PCHA 8/21/79 P. 44. [7] Mr. Walrath admitted at the PCHA hearings that he did present the alibi defense, at least in part. See N.T. PCHA 8/21/79 P. 75; N.T. PCHA 10/3/79 pp. 18-19. This statement is strongly supported in the record. His introduction of several exhibits, his thorough and aggressive cross-examination of the Commonwealth's witnesses and his exhaustive summation demonstrate a relentless and forceful attack on the Commonwealth's evidence as to the time of death. [8] It is well-settled that the credibility of witnesses in PCHA proceedings is exclusively within the province of the hearing court. Commonwealth v. Williams, 496 Pa. 486, 437 A.2d 1144 (1981); Commonwealth v. Alston, 473 Pa. 40, 373 A.2d 741 (1977); Commonwealth v. Smith, 454 Pa. 256, 312 A.2d 396 (1973). The hearing court's evidentiary findings are entitled to great weight on appeal. Id. See also, Commonwealth v. Lee, 478 Pa. 70, 385 A.2d 1317 (1978); Commonwealth v. Hauser, 450 Pa. 388, 299 A.2d 218 (1973). [9] Appellant himself, while not actually testifying, presented a closing argument at the second hearing in which he did not indicate in any way how his testimony would have aided the defense. N.T. PCHA 10/3/79 pp. 156-161. Moreover, whatever appellant's testimony might have been, he was not denied the opportunity to offer it at trial. With regard to Trooper George, the record is barren of any potentially favorable evidence which could have been elicited from him. See Opinion of Williams, P.J., p. 6 (Opinion filed April 22, 1980). Furthermore, regarding Dr. King's testimony, Mr. Walrath admitted at the PCHA hearing that Dr. King had changed his opinion by the time of the trial, and agreed with the Commonwealth's expert concerning the time of the victim's death. N.T. PCHA 8/21/79 pp. 95-96. [10] We identified the issues on direct appeal more completely in a footnote: In appellant's brief the following nine issues are raised: (1) the indictment was improper; . . . and (9) the special prosecutor was guilty of misconduct. We see no jurisprudential need to discuss any of these assertions of error in this opinion. Additionally, we have an independent responsibility to review the evidence to determine whether the record is sufficient to support a finding of murder in the first degree. . . . This we have done and are satisfied there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Commonwealth v. McKenna, 476 Pa. 428, 431-32 n.3, 383 A.2d at 174, 176 n.3 (1978). [11] In fact, appellant assumed the Commonwealth witness was available, but chose not to call him to testify. See Appellant's Brief at 25. [1] The situation presented in this case is not one where counsel, after consideration of recognized tactical alternatives, determined that certain witnesses should not be called to testify. Counsel's realm of discretion over the choice of tactics employed is broad, and that discretion necessarily includes the exercise of judgment about whether the presentation of particular witnesses' testimony would, considering all relevant factors, be beneficial to the client's case. See Commonwealth v. Spells, 490 Pa. 282, 288, 416 A.2d 470, 473-474 (1980).