Opinion ID: 6358387
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Brown's prior homicide conviction

Text: Brown contends that he was denied due process, a reliable sentencing, and effective assistance of counsel because the Commonwealth impermissibly introduced  evidence of a constitutionally infirm prior homicide conviction as an aggravating circumstance. Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(11), it is an aggravating circumstance to have been convicted of another murder committed in any jurisdiction and committed either before or at the time of the offense at issue. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(11). In this regard, during the penalty phase of the trial, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of Philadelphia Assistant District Attorney William Fisher (Attorney Fisher), who prosecuted Brown in 2004 for the murder of a Rite Aid store manager. Attorney Fisher testified that while Brown did not pull the trigger in that incident, he conspired with his codefendants to rob the Rite-Aid and was accordingly convicted of second-degree murder. Brown concedes that his prior conviction has thus far been affirmed at all levels of appellate review, 20 and points only to his remaining available challenges to that conviction in the federal courts. In his brief, Brown indicates that he asserts this claim now only to preserve it in the event his second-degree murder conviction is vacated in federal proceedings. Brown's Brief at 76. As such, no basis exists for granting relief as to this claim.