In order to support a claim that counsel was ineffective for not "putting" the appellant on the witness stand, the appellant must demonstrate either that (1) counsel interfered with his client's freedom to testify, or (2) he gave specific advice so unreasonable as to vitiate a knowing and intelligent decision by the client not to testify in his own behalf.Ĭommonwealth v. The decision whether to testify in one's own behalf is ultimately to be made by the accused after full consultation with counsel. We commented on the issue of trial counsel's ineffectiveness in the context of a defendant's failure to testify: The burden of proof of the allegations remains with the claimant, their accuracy still to be established by his submission of relevant proofs. In conducting this analysis it is important to bear in mind that allegations of the deprivation of the right to effective representation of counsel are not self-sustaining. Assuming positive resolution of both inquiries above, we require finally that the claimant demonstrate how the asserted ineffectiveness prejudiced his cause. We next determine whether of the alternatives available to counsel in presenting the defense those chosen were possessed of a reasonable basis in effecting his client's interests. Then, in analyzing a defendant's claim, we examine whether the claimant's allegations are possessed of arguable merit. 325, 333-334, 554 A.2d 20, 24 (1989):Īpproaching our task of determining whether counsel's assistance was effective we initially presume that it was. In reviewing appellant's claims of trial counsel's ineffectiveness, we are guided by a well-established standard, recently repeated by the supreme court in Commonwealth v. At trial, appellant's defense was that he was provoked and was operating under the influence of alcohol and drugs, in an attempt to reduce the degree of murder.Īppellant's first allegation on appeal is that trial counsel was ineffective for "frustrating" his desire to testify at trial. Appellant was arrested twenty minutes after shooting Hudson. Later, appellant returned to Stormy's and shot Hudson. 22 caliber rifle, loaded it, and stated that he was angry with Melvin Hudson and that "he could get him anytime he felt like it." Notes of Testimony ("N.T."), 3/16-18/86, at 36. Together they visited appellant's girl friend at her apartment. On the evening of the murder, appellant met his long-time friend Richard Alston at Stormy's Cafe, which is located near appellant's home in Rankin, Pennsylvania. *412 Various people in Stormy's Cafe on the evening of September 26, 1986, witnessed one or more of the following events: appellant arguing with Melvin Hudson appellant leaving the bar appellant returning to the bar with a rifle appellant summoning Hudson to the street and appellant then shooting Hudson with the rifle. A hearing on the ineffectiveness claims was held February 11, 1988, just prior to denial of post-trial and supplemental post-trial motions and imposition of sentence. Appellant, James Rivers, obtained new counsel following his trial consequently, the issues raised on this direct appeal concern trial counsel's ineffectiveness. This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence of life imprisonment imposed February 11, 1988, following appellant's conviction of first-degree murder for the shooting death of Melvin Hudson. DeCourcy, Assistant District Attorney, Pittsburgh, for Com., appellee. Healey, Pittsburgh, for appellant.ĭara A.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |