Com. v. Shields, T. ( 2021 )

J-S45029-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
THOMAS SHIELDS : No. 2990 EDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 19, 2019,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0001153-2013.
BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED JULY 20, 2021
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals the order granting the
petition filed by Thomas Shields pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act
(“PCRA”)1 which vacated his judgment of sentence and granted him a new
trial. We remanded for the PCRA court to issue a revised Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
opinion addressing the issues raised in the Commonwealth’s Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, and explaining
the basis for its grant of PCRA relief to Shields.
The PCRA court revised its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion to indicate that
PCRA relief was granted on multiple bases, including on claims made by
Shields that trial counsel was ineffective. Shields had claimed that his trial
____________________________________________
1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S45029-20
counsel was ineffective for (1) not filing a motion to suppress evidence
recovered during a search of [Shields’] cellphone; (2) not objecting to
comments made by the prosecutor during closing argument; and (3) not
objecting to the trial court’s jury instructions defining an “overt act” as an
element of criminal conspiracy. The PCRA court indicated, inter alia, that “if .
. . trial counsel had objected at the proper times, this court believes that a
curative instruction would have been offered. It also becomes clear that these
failures of counsel to object could not reasonably have been designed to
further [Shields’] interests.” PCRA Court Opinion, 4/7/21, at 8.
Importantly, to succeed on an ineffectiveness claim, appellant must
demonstrate by the preponderance of the evidence that:
(1) [the] underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) the particular
course of conduct pursued by counsel did not have some
reasonable basis designed to effectuate his interests; and (3) but
for counsel’s ineffectiveness, there is a reasonable probability that
the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.
Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282, 291 (Pa. 2010). .
Here, because the PCRA court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing to
permit trial counsel to explain the bases for his trial strategies, we cannot
determine whether trial counsel had a reasonable basis for not filing a motion
to suppress and not objecting to comments made by the prosecutor during
closing argument or to the trial court’s jury instructions. Without this critical
evidence, it was improper for the PCRA court to summarily conclude that
counsel did not have a reasonable basis for his actions.
-2-
J-S45029-20
Additionally, the PCRA court did not address whether there was a
reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been
different had trial counsel filed a motion to suppress and made the specified
objections.
Accordingly, we remand for the PCRA court to conduct an evidentiary
hearing to permit the introduction of evidence and testimony relevant to the
claims raised by Shields in his PCRA petition.
Order granting PCRA relief vacated.
Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/20/2021
-3-