Commonwealth v. Shaw, 21 MAP 2020
| Decision Date | 25 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 21 MAP 2020,21 MAP 2020 |
| Citation | 247 A.3d 1008 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Anthony SHAW, Appellee |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
In light of the statutory, one-year limitation on the time during which a petition for relief from a judgment of sentence may be filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act, difficult issues have arisen regarding the extent to which a petitioner's rule-based right to effective counsel in post-conviction matters may be vindicated. Presently, the Superior Court determined that certain redress may be afforded during post-conviction appeals, and the Commonwealth challenges this ruling.
On November 30, 2009, apparently in the 7:00 p.m. to 7:20 p.m. timeframe, Appellee shot the victim, Alex Adebisi, at the victim's apartment in Darby Borough, which is near Philadelphia. Subsequently, Appellee was tried jointly with a co-perpetrator for attempted murder and other offenses. At the pretrial stage, Appellee's counsel filed a notice of alibi under Rule of Criminal Procedure 567(A). Under this rule, a defendant who intends to present an alibi defense at trial must file a notice containing:
specific information as to the place or places where the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses whom the defendant intends to call in support of the claims.
The notice submitted by Appellee's counsel identified two alibi witnesses, April Wynn and Devon Crowley. Further, the notice provided:
Notice of Alibi Defense dated Apr. 29, 2011, in Commonwealth v. Shaw , No. 6238-10 (C.P. Delaware), at 1-2 (emphasis added).
At trial, however, only Ms. Wynn was called by the defense to testify concerning the alibi. She stated that Appellee arrived at her house on November 30 in the 5:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. timeframe. See N.T., Sept. 14, 2011, at 154. Further, she attested that the pair rode in an unlicensed cab to Willow Grove Mall in Philadelphia's northern suburbs, arriving around 7:00 p.m. -- i.e. , as the crimes on the west side of Philadelphia in Darby were unfolding -- returning to her home after 11:00 p.m. See id. at 154-55.
During her cross-examination of Ms. Wynn, the prosecutor referred to the notice of alibi to impeach the veracity of Appellee's alibi. Trial counsel objected, as follows:
Your Honor, the Commonwealth apparently -- is attempting to impeach this witness with my alibi notice. It's not her statement. It's not -- and had the Commonwealth interviewed these people the -- I think what the Commonwealth's trying to show is that these two people were together and that's not what we're saying at all .
N.T., Sept. 14, 2011, at 170 (emphasis added).1 The trial court overruled this objection.
The prosecutor then asked Ms. Wynn: "[W]ould it surprise you that this notice says that Anthony Shaw was with you and -- and Devon [Crowley] and that you all were in Philadelphia" at the time of the shooting. Id. at 175 (emphasis added). The witness replied that Ms. Crowley was not present with her and Appellee in the relevant time period. See id. at 175-76.
After the Commonwealth concluded the cross-examination, Appellee's counsel asked for a sidebar conference and moved for a mistrial, and the following interchange ensued:
Id. at 178-79 (emphasis added).
In his closing remarks, trial counsel discussed the notice of alibi extensively, taking responsibility for having drafted and submitted it and explaining that, because witnesses had made statements indicating that the perpetrators were in Darby during the afternoon on November 30, he had identified Ms. Crowley to attest to Appellee's whereabouts at that time. In this vein, counsel advised the jurors:
So one part of the day we had one witness. The latter part we had a second witness, okay. And what the alibi notice doesn't say that we were altogether [sic]. ... [Ms. Wynn has] just testified as to where [Appellee] was from 5:30 to around 11:30, midnight, okay. If Ms. [Crowley] were called, again, we didn't have to call Ms. [Crowley] because they concentrated their portion of the case on the evening part of what happened, the shooting itself. But had they got into the other evidence and it was necessary, Ms. [Crowley] would have been available.
Id. at 218-219 (emphasis added).
For the prosecutor's part, she succinctly highlighted to the jury that:
There was no Devon [Crowley] with [Appellee and Ms. Wynn] at the time of the commission of the crime. And I would suggest to you that [Appellee] was not at the Willow Grove Mall or in some hack on his way to the Willow Grove Mall. He was in [the victim's] apartment, holding a gun[.]
After Appellee was convicted and an unsuccessful direct appeal was concluded, see Commonwealth v. Shaw , 105 A.3d 794 (Pa. Super. 2014) (per curiam ), appeal denied , 630 Pa. 736, 106 A.3d 726 (2015), he lodged a petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act. See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541 - 9546 (the "PCRA"). In the proceedings before the post-conviction court, Appellee pursued a claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to amend the alibi notice prior to trial to remove the reference to Ms. Crowley. Attorney Stephen Molineux served as post-conviction counsel at the original-jurisdiction stage.
During an evidentiary hearing limited to the alibi-related claim, trial counsel testified that he had been retained by Appellee's mother, Monique Shaw, who provided him with "a myriad of information" and assisted in coordinating with witnesses. N.T., April 5, 2018, at 30-31, 36 (). Counsel related that Appellee had said that he was with Ms. Crowley in the afternoon of November 30 from around 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Consistent with his explanation to the jurors at trial, counsel explained that this was significant since Commonwealth witnesses placed the perpetrators in Darby during this time period. See id. at 32-33, 52, 55-56. Although counsel indicated that he met with Ms. Wynn several times prior to trial, he acknowledged that he had never met with Ms. Crowley. See id. at 35, 51. But, according to counsel, he always expected Ms. Crowley to testify, and again, was depending upon Monique Shaw to produce the witness. See id. at 37, 40-41, 52 (), 53 ("I mean she delivered April [Wynn] and I expected Mrs. [Crowley] to be produced.").
At some point, however, counsel remembered that "there may have been a conversation with Monique Shaw that Mrs. -- something to the effect that there may have been some issue concerning Mrs. Crowley -- her inability to get in touch with her[.]" Id. at 38; see also id. at 41 (). Counsel maintained, however, that he had never been told in advance of trial that Ms. Crowley wouldn't appear or cooperate. See id. at 51-52. Had counsel known in advance that Ms. Crowley would not be available to testify, he said that he would have advised Appellee of the option to amend the alibi notice or leave it as is and "see what happened." Id. at 39.
On cross-examination, Attorney Molineux engaged in the following dialogue with trial counsel:
Id. at 49-50 (emphasis added). This is the first instance in which counsel seems to have apprehended the notice's clear import in depicting that Appellee, Ms. Wynn, and Ms. Crowley all were together at the time of the shooting.
Maintaining that there was no need to amend the alibi notice, trial counsel also reiterated that:
I thought it was error to permit the alibi notice to be used by the Commonwealth to impeach the witness, April [Wynn], where she would have to explain what I wrote. ... I didn't agree that I...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Bradley
...cannot be identified until the proceeding has concluded." Ligons , 971 A.2d at 1139. Related thereto, and in line with our expressions in Shaw , the Rule 302 waiver doctrine should not apply in these circumstances, as the issue preservation concerns underlying the doctrine simply cannot be ......
-
Commonwealth v. Parrish
...since Parrish did not obtain present PCRA counsel until a notice of appeal was filed. Id. at 405 (citing Commonwealth v. Shaw , ––– Pa. ––––, 247 A.3d 1008, 1015-16 (2021) (noting the general rule against counsel challenging their own performance)). In Bradley , we stated that "it would be ......
-
Commonwealth v. Lind
...979-80 (2019)). The PCRA court is "the appropriate-and, indeed, the only-forum for the evidentiary and factual development" of PCRA claims. Id. (quoting Commonwealth Koehler, 658 658, 695, 229 A.3d 915, 937 (2020)). Recently, in Commonwealth v. Bradley, __Pa. __, 261 A.3d 381 (2021), our Su......
-
Commonwealth v. Washington
...Appellant's claim regarding prior PCRA counsel's failure to preserve these arguments.3 The Commonwealth cites Commonwealth v. Shaw , ––– Pa. ––––, 247 A.3d 1008 (2021), for the proposition that the circumstances of this case warrant remand for the PCRA court to review Appellant's new ineffe......