Com. v. Chambers
Decision Date | 26 September 2002 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Karl CHAMBERS, Appellant. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Ellen Burkowitz, Philadelphia, for Karl Chambers, appellant.
Amy Zapp, Harrisburg, for the Com. of PA, appellee.
Before ZAPPALA, C.J., and CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR and EAKIN, JJ.
Karl Chambers (Chambers) appeals from an Order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County (PCRA court) denying his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act1 (PCRA). For the reasons set forth herein, we reverse the PCRA court and remand the matter for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
The evidence submitted at trial, as summarized by this Court on direct review, established the following:
Commonwealth v. Chambers, 528 Pa. 558, 599 A.2d 630, 633-635 (1991) (Chambers I), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 946, 112 S.Ct. 2290, 119 L.Ed.2d 214 (1992).
On June 26, 1987, a jury convicted Chambers of one count of murder of the first degree2 and one count of robbery.3 Following a penalty hearing, the same jury found one aggravating circumstance, that the killing occurred during the commission of a robbery,4 and one mitigating circumstance, that Chambers had no significant history of prior criminal offenses.5 The jury concluded that the aggravating circumstance outweighed the mitigating circumstance and sentenced Chambers to death. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the convictions for robbery and first-degree murder, but remanded the matter for a new penalty phase hearing because the prosecutor had referred to the Bible during the sentencing hearing. We concluded that "reliance in any manner upon the Bible or any other religious writing in support of the imposition of a penalty of death is reversible error per se." Chambers I at 644.
At the second penalty phase hearing, conducted from May 16, 1994, until June 3, 1994, the jury found the same aggravating circumstance and two mitigating circumstances: (1) that Chambers had no significant history of prior criminal offenses (which the original jury had found); and (2) other evidence of mitigation, including family background, physical and mental abuse, neglect, survival needs, mental age, credibility of witnesses, behavior while in prison, and non-violent behavioral background.6 The jury found that the aggravating circumstance outweighed the mitigating circumstances and imposed a sentence of death. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the sentence of death. Commonwealth v. Chambers, 546 Pa. 370, 685 A.2d 96 (1996) (Chambers II), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 827, 118 S.Ct. 90, 139 L.Ed.2d 46 (1997).7
Chambers filed a timely Petition for Post Conviction Relief pursuant to the PCRA on November 10, 1997, and he submitted an amended Petition on April 21, 1998. His amended Petition raised numerous claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and contended that he was denied his constitutional right to due process because the Commonwealth failed to disclose material exculpatory evidence. By Opinion and Order dated March 8, 2000, the PCRA court denied Chambers' PCRA Petition, concluding that Chambers had not met the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his constitutional rights were violated or that trial counsel was ineffective.8
On appeal to this Court, Chambers raises the following fourteen claims attacking his convictions and sentences:9
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Bryant
...agree. We review the denial of a discovery request in post-conviction proceedings for an abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Chambers, 570 Pa. 3, 807 A.2d 872, 889 (2002). Rule of Criminal Procedure 902(E)(2) provides that, in a first counseled PCRA petition in a death penalty case, "n......
-
Commonwealth v. Brown
...A claim that a PCRA court erred by denying a discovery request is governed by an abuse of discretion standard. Commonwealth v. Chambers , 570 Pa. 3, 807 A.2d 872, 889 (2002). Based upon the certified record in this case, we discern no basis for a finding of an abuse of discretion. We note t......
-
Commonwealth v. Champney
...or might have affected the outcome of the trial, does not establish materiality in the constitutional sense.” Commonwealth v. Chambers, 570 Pa. 3, 807 A.2d 872, 887 (2002) (quoting United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 109–10, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976)). Blickley's state parole bo......
-
Dansby v. Hobbs
...all 12 jurors agreed on the existence of a particular such circumstance.” Id. at 384, 108 S.Ct. 1860; see also Commonwealth v. Chambers, 570 Pa. 3, 807 A.2d 872, 883 (2002) (finding an Eighth Amendment violation where “the instruction, when read as a whole, seems to indicate to jurors that,......