Opinion ID: 2291870
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: anthony appeal

Text: In his cross-appeal, Anthony contends that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of his alibi witnesses. The Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that a defendant who intends to present a defense of alibi must file a notice of intention to claim the defense. Pa.R.Crim.P. 305(C)(1)(a). The notice must specify the place or places where defendant claims to have been at the time the offense was committed as well as the names and addresses of witnesses who will testify to support the defense. Id. The purpose of the Rule is to insure both the defendant and the State ample opportunity to investigate certain facts crucial to the determination of guilt or innocence. Commonwealth v. Fernandez, 333 Pa.Super. 279, 289, 482 A.2d 567, 572 (1984) (quoting Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 82, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 1896, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970)). Rule 305 further provides that If the defendant fails to file and serve notice of alibi defense . . . the court at trial may exclude entirely any evidence offered by the defendant for the purpose of proving the defense, except testimony by the defendant, or may grant a continuance to enable the Commonwealth to investigate such evidence, or may make such other order as the interests of justice require. Id. at 305(C)(1)(d). Here, at trial, Anthony presented an alibi defense. He testified that he was at a friend's house watching a movie at the time of the shooting. N.T. February 13, 1985 at 52-53. In addition, Anthony attempted to call Jason Ruffin and a second unnamed person as witnesses to corroborate his defense. [3] He failed, however, to file the required notice of alibi defense until the morning of the trial. The court prohibited the alibi witnesses from testifying, concluding that Anthony's failure to give adequate notice of his defense denied the Commonwealth the opportunity to investigate the alibi. Id. at 34-35. Anthony failed to request a continuance to allow the Commonwealth to investigate his defense. Accordingly, because the court was authorized to exclude this testimony under Rule 305(C)(1)(d), we conclude that the court did not err in prohibiting the alibi witnesses from testifying. In the alternative, Anthony argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to timely file a notice of intention to present the defense of alibi. The determination whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance is arrived at through a two-prong test. First, we must ascertain whether the issue underlying the claim of ineffectiveness has arguable merit. Commonwealth v. Buehl, 510 Pa. 363, 378, 508 A.2d 1167, 1174 (1986). This requirement is based upon the principle that we will not find counsel ineffective for failing to pursue a frivolous claim or strategy. Commonwealth v. Parker, 503 Pa. 336, 341, 469 A.2d 582, 584 (1983). Second, if appellant's claim does have arguable merit, we must determine whether the course chosen by counsel had some reasonable basis designed to serve the best interests of the client. Commonwealth v. Buehl, supra (citing Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 605, 235 A.2d 349, 353 (1967)). If our review of the record reveals that counsel was ineffective, we then must determine whether appellant has demonstrated that counsel's ineffectiveness worked to his or her prejudice. Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153, 159, 527 A.2d 973, 976 (1987). To determine whether appellant was prejudiced, our Supreme Court adopted the test announced by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Commonwealth v. Pierce, supra . Under Strickland, to prove that counsel's ineffectiveness resulted in prejudice, an appellant must show that the error was so serious as to deprive [him or her] of a fair trial, a trial whose result was reliable. Strickland v. Washington, supra at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. Under this analysis, we first must determine whether appellant-Anthony's underlying claim  that the testimony of these witnesses was necessary to corroborate his alibi defense  has arguable merit. We conclude that it does not. Ruffin's testimony would have established that, some time prior to the shooting, he saw Anthony at a friend's house. N.T. February 13, 1985 at 47. In addition, he would have testified that he informed Anthony of a fight between the victim and Anthony's cousin and that Anthony informed him that he did not want to accompany Ruffin to the fight. Id. This testimony would not have been helpful to Anthony in establishing his alibi because it would only have shown where Anthony was at the time of the fight and would not have excluded the possibility that Anthony participated in the shooting, which occurred later that afternoon. Anthony also argues that an unnamed witness would have been helpful in corroborating his alibi. In seeking to establish that counsel should have called a witness, an appellant must allege (1) the identity of the witness, (2) that counsel knew of the existence of the witnesses, (3) the material evidence that the witness would have provided, and (4) the manner in which the witness would have been helpful to his or her cause. Commonwealth v. Polk, 347 Pa.Super. 265, 273, 500 A.2d 825, 829 (1985); Commonwealth v. Torres, 329 Pa.Super. 58, 68, 477 A.2d 1350, 1355 (1984). Here, Anthony has failed to identify the alibi witness. In addition, he has not set forth the material evidence that the witness would have provided. Without more, we are unable to determine whether this witness would have been helpful to establishing his defense. Accordingly, because the testimony of these witnesses would not have been helpful to Anthony, we conclude that his claim lacks arguable merit. Counsel, therefore, was not ineffective for failing to properly file notice of alibi defense under Rule 305.