Commonwealth v. Wilson
Citation | 482 Pa. 350,393 A.2d 1141 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Michael WILSON, Appellant. |
Decision Date | 05 October 1978 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
Submitted Jan. 19, 1978.
Reconsideration and Oral Argument Denied Nov. 20, 1978.
Allan M. Dabrow, Philadelphia, for appellant.
F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Dist. Atty., Steven Goldblatt, Deputy Dist. Atty. for Law, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before EAGEN C. J., and O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX, MANDERINO and LARSEN, JJ.
Appellant Michael Wilson, was convicted by a jury of murder of the first degree for the shooting death of Gregory Davis. Post-verdict motions were denied and a direct appeal was filed to this court where we affirmed by an equally-divided court. Commonwealth v. Wilson, 463 Pa. 1, 329 A.2d 881 (1974). Counsel told appellant he would file a petition for reargument; however, no such petition was filed within the required time.
Appellant subsequently filed a Pro se petition under the Post Conviction Hearing Act (PCHA). [1] Counsel was appointed and an amended PCHA petition was filed. Following a hearing, the court below granted appellant permission to file a petition for reargument Nunc pro tunc, [2] but denied all other requested relief. Appellant now appeals from that portion of the order denying relief.
Appellant claims that he has been denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. For reasons hereinafter stated, we do not believe appellant is entitled to relief.
In Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 604-05, 235 A.2d 349, 352 (1967), we stated:
(Emphasis in original.)
As a corollary, counsel is not ineffective for failing to raise baseless or frivolous issues. Commonwealth v. Rice, 456 Pa. 90, 318 A.2d 705 (1974). It is with this standard in mind that we must review appellant's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Appellant first claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to portions of the prosecutor's closing remarks, which appellant believed to be inflammatory. The comments concern appellant's failure to take the stand and alleged expressions of the prosecutor's personal beliefs. We believe, however, that appellant failed to preserve this question for appellate review.
In his amended PCHA petition, appellant made a general allegation that trial counsel was ineffective for failing "to raise and preserve on appeal issues of inflammatory summation and other prosecution misconduct." At the hearing, appellant's counsel made no specific argument on this claim. When counsel filed a brief in support of the PCHA petition eleven days after the hearing, specific instances of alleged inflammatory summation were alluded to for the first time. Under these circumstances, we believe appellant has waived this claim.
In Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, Supra, 427 Pa. at 608, 235 A.2d at 354, we stated:
"As with other assertions of a denial of constitutional rights in post conviction proceedings, the burden remains throughout with the prisoner to demonstrate any constitutional deprivation." [3]
Once a prisoner has made such a showing, the Commonwealth can, of course, call witnesses to rebut his allegations. More specifically, in this case, once appellant would have shown instances where it seemed that trial counsel should have objected, the Commonwealth could then have called trial counsel to the stand to explain his failure to object, thus showing either his effectiveness or lack of effectiveness.
Because of appellant's failure to allude to specific instances of inflammatory summation before the PCHA hearing, the Commonwealth never had the opportunity to call trial counsel to explain his actions. For reasons similar to this, Commonwealth v. Clair, 458 Pa. 418, 326 A.2d 272 (1974), and its progeny require a certain degree of specificity to preserve issues for appellate review, and we do not believe that such specificity was present in this case until the brief was filed. For reasons previously stated, we believe such specificity must be met before the evidentiary hearing and not after. [4] As we stated in Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 477 Pa. 274, 383 A.2d 930 (1978): "We believe these claims are waived, because appellant, by waiting until after the hearing, denied the Commonwealth the opportunity to defend against assertions raised at such a late date."
Appellant next claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to portions of the trial court's charge to the jury. This point, however, was not raised in the counseled petition and is thus waived. Commonwealth v. Mitchell, Supra, and Pa.R.Crim.P. 1506(4).
Appellant finally claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to question prospective jurors about a possible bias they may have had about gangs and gang-related killings. Counsel did ask one juror, "How do you feel about gang warfare?" The trial court sustained the prosecutor's immediate objection.
In Commonwealth v. Futch, 469 Pa. 422, 426-27, 366 A.2d 246, 248 (1976), we stated:
In Commonwealth v. Johnson, 452 Pa. 130, 305 A.2d 5 (1973), defense counsel proposed to ask prospective jurors if they had any prejudice against either the use of alcoholic beverages or psychiatric testimony. The court refused these questions, and we upheld the refusal, stating:
Id., at 135-36, 305 A.2d at 8.
As in Johnson, appellant in this case was not entitled to determine in advance a juror's attitude about gang-related incidents. As pursing this line of questioning would have been useless, counsel was not ineffective in this respect. Commonwealth v. Rice, Supra.
Order affirmed.
The majority holds that appellant has waived any claim that trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to certain remarks made by the assistant district attorney during closing argument to the jury. The majority asserts that appellant's post-conviction counsel failed to preserve this issue, however, the issue was specifically raised in counsel's written PCHA petition; was raised at the PCHA hearing; was briefed by appellant's post-conviction counsel and answered by the prosecution; and was considered by the PCHA court.
To continue reading
Request your trial- Commonwealth v. Hogan
-
Com. v. Hogan
... Page 1133 ... 393 A.2d 1133 ... 482 Pa. 333 ... COMMONWEALTH" of Pennsylvania ... Anthony HOGAN, Appellant ... Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ... Argued Oct. 20, 1977 ... Decided Oct. 5, 1978 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Com. v. Wilson
...393 A.2d 1141 ... 482 Pa. 350 ... COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ... Michael WILSON, Appellant ... Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ... Submitted Jan. 19, 1978 ... Decided Oct. 5, 1978 ... Reconsideration and Oral Argument Denied Nov. 20, 1978 ... [482 Pa. 351] Allan M. Dabrow, Philadelphia, for appellant ... ...