Com. v. Marinelli
Decision Date | 25 November 2002 |
Citation | 810 A.2d 1257,570 Pa. 622 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Kevin MARINELLI, Appellant. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Billy Horatio Nolas, Philadelphia, for appellant, Kevin Marinelli.
Ann Targonski, Sunbury, for appellee, Com. of PA.
Before ZAPPALA, C.J., and CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR and EAKIN, JJ.
Kevin Marinelli (Marinelli) appeals from an Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland 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 affirm in part and reverse in part the Order of the PCRA court and remand the matter for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
The evidence submitted at trial, as summarized by the 1997 opinion of this Court on direct review, authored by Justice Cappy, established the following:
Commonwealth v. Marinelli, 547 Pa. 294, 690 A.2d 203, 209-210 (1997),cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1024, 118 S.Ct. 1309, 140 L.Ed.2d 473 (1998).
The Commonwealth tried Marinelli and Kirchoff for the homicide of Dumchock.2 Following a joint trial conducted from May 12, 1995, through May 18, 1995, a jury convicted Marinelli of murder in the first degree,3 robbery,4 conspiracy to commit robbery,5 burglary,6 theft by unlawful taking,7 receiving stolen property,8 and aggravated assault.9 The jury convicted Kirchoff of all of the same crimes, save murder in the first degree, convicting him instead of murder in the second degree.10 Following a penalty hearing limited to Marinelli, the same jury found two aggravating circumstances, that Marinelli committed the killing while in the perpetration of a felony11 and that he committed the offense by means of torture,12 and two mitigating circumstances, that Marinelli had no significant history of prior convictions13 and other evidence concerning Marinelli's character and record.14 The jury concluded that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances and, accordingly, sentenced Marinelli to death. The trial court sentenced Marinelli to additional terms of imprisonment of ten to twenty years for robbery, five to ten years for conspiracy, and ten to twenty years for burglary, each sentence to run consecutive to all other sentences. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the convictions and judgments of sentence. Marinelli, 690 A.2d at 222. The same attorney, James J. Rosini, Esq. (Rosini), represented Marinelli at trial and on direct appeal.
Marinelli filed a timely pro se Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and request for appointment of counsel on April 28, 1998. The PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed an Amended PCRA Petition on October 13, 1998 (First Amended Petition). Original PCRA counsel ceased representation of Marinelli on October 22, 1999, at which time second PCRA counsel entered an appearance on behalf of Marinelli. The PCRA court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the Amended PCRA Petition from January 24, 2000, through January 27, 2000. On March 22, 2000, second PCRA counsel filed a Second Amended PCRA Petition (Second Amended Petition). On March 28, 2000, the PCRA court ordered the parties to file post-hearing briefs on the issues raised at the January 2000 hearing. The PCRA court received these briefs from both the Commonwealth and second PCRA counsel in March of 2001 and entertained arguments on May 1, 2001, on the additional issue raised in the Second Amended Petition and the issues discussed in Marinelli's post-hearing briefs. By Opinion and Order dated May 15, 2001, the PCRA court denied Marinelli's request for post-conviction relief. Also on May 15, 2001, second PCRA counsel withdrew and current PCRA counsel substituted his appearance for that of second PCRA counsel.
On appeal to this Court, Marinelli raises thirteen claims attacking his convictions and sentences. For clarity of discussion, we group together those claims that we dispose, of in similar fashion and state each such issue at that time.
The PCRA court determined that Marinelli waived each of the following eight claims because he did not properly preserve them by raising them in either his Second Amended Petition or in his Post-Hearing Memorandum:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woods v. State
...witnesses, who were police officers, in an effective manner so as to convey the same information. See Commonwealth v. Marinelli, 570 Pa. 622, 810 A.2d 1257, 1269 (2002) (rejecting claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to call a defense expert witness to refute testimony proffered b......
-
Com. v. Tedford
...Randolph, 873 A.2d at 1282 (quoting Commonwealth v. Davido, 582 Pa. 52, 868 A.2d 431, 443 (2005)); Commonwealth v. Marinelli, 570 Pa. 622, 810 A.2d 1257, 1275-76 (2002). This inquiry involves an examination of whether the defendant fully understood the nature of the right and the consequenc......
-
Commonwealth of Pa. v. Chmiel
...becomes whether or not [defense counsel] effectively cross-examined [the Commonwealth's expert witness].” Commonwealth v. Marinelli, 570 Pa. 622, 810 A.2d 1257, 1269 (2002) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Focusing on the latter point first, it is beyond peradventure that Appellant'......
-
Com. v. Davido
...the right to present mitigating evidence, so long as the waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Commonwealth v. Marinelli, 570 Pa. 622, 810 A.2d 1257, 1275-76 (2002). Furthermore, we have repeatedly held that the death penalty statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711, associated case law, and th......