Commonwealth v. Shields

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reviews Charles Shields’s appeal from the dismissal of his first PCRA petition. The court addresses newly raised claims of prior PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness under Commonwealth v. Bradley, including claims concerning undisclosed eyewitness identification information and the legality of consecutive sentences for inchoate offenses. The court vacates the PCRA dismissal and remands for consideration of one newly raised ineffectiveness claim.

Holdings

1. The Brady claim was facially meritless because the alleged non-identification was consistent with and cumulative of the eyewitness's trial testimony that she could not identify the perpetrators.
2. The court vacated the order dismissing the PCRA petition and remanded for the PCRA court to consider, in the first instance, Appellant's claim that prior PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the legality of his consecutive sentences for attempted kidnapping and conspiracy.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Commonwealth violated due process by allegedly failing to disclose that an eyewitness did not identify Appellant in a photographic array, and whether prior PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to raise that claim.
2. Whether Appellant's consecutive sentences for attempted kidnapping and conspiracy violated 18 Pa.C.S. § 906 because the jury did not specify the object of the conspiracy.
3. Whether prior PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the legality of Appellant's sentence.

Disposition

vacated