From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Martinez-Ocasio

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug 14, 2018
No. 874 MDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 14, 2018)

Opinion

J-S35007-18 No. 874 MDA 2016

08-14-2018

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v. JULIO CESAR MARTINEZ-OCASIO, Appellee


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the PCRA Entered Order April 22, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0002495-2012 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and MURRAY, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:

The Commonwealth appeals from the post-conviction court's April 22, 2016 order granting Appellee's, Julio Cesar Martinez-Ocasio, petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546, and awarding Appellee a new trial based on the court's conclusion that his trial counsel acted ineffectively by failing to call character witnesses on Appellee's behalf. After careful review, we affirm.

In this appeal, the Commonwealth presents the following issue for our review:

1. Whether the PCRA court erred in granting [Appellee] a new trial where:

a. the claim lacks arguable merit as the alleged character traits were not at issue during the trial; and

b. trial counsel had a reasonable basis for not calling character witnesses; and
c. the decision not to include character witnesses did not prejudice [Appellant] as [Appellant] admitted to violating the law and driving in a reckless manner and where the evidence of guilt was overwhelming?
Commonwealth's Brief at 4.

We begin by recognizing that,

[i]n reviewing the propriety of an order granting or denying PCRA relief, an appellate court is limited to ascertaining whether the record supports the determination of the PCRA court and whether the ruling is free of legal error." Commonwealth v. Johnson , 600 Pa. 329, 966 A.2d 523, 532 (2009). We pay great deference to the findings of the PCRA court, "but its legal determinations are subject to our plenary review." Id.
Commonwealth v. Matias , 63 A.3d 807, 810 (Pa. Super. 2013).

With this standard of review in mind, we have carefully examined the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law. We have also assessed the detailed opinion of the Honorable John S. Kennedy of the Court of Common Pleas of York County filed on October 24, 2017. We conclude that Judge Kennedy's thoughtful and comprehensive analysis is supported by the record, and that he adequately addresses the issues raised by the Commonwealth. Moreover, we discern no legal error in Judge Kennedy's conclusion that Appellee's trial counsel acted ineffectively and, therefore, Appellee is entitled to a new trial. Consequently, we affirm the PCRA court's order granting Appellee's petition on the basis set forth in Judge Kennedy's opinion.

Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 8/14/18

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Martinez-Ocasio

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug 14, 2018
No. 874 MDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 14, 2018)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Martinez-Ocasio

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v. JULIO CESAR MARTINEZ-OCASIO…

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Aug 14, 2018

Citations

No. 874 MDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 14, 2018)