Com. v. Godines, J.

Citation: Not availableDocket: Com. v. Godines, J. No. 1586 WDA 2016

Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania; April 19, 2017; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Johnathan Keith Godines appeals the October 4, 2016, order from the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, which denied his first petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) after an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirms the lower court's decision. The incident in question occurred on November 15, 2011, in Brownsville, Pennsylvania, where witnesses observed Godines attacking the victim. Eyewitnesses testified that Godines, dressed in a dark hooded sweatshirt, kicked the victim's car multiple times before forcibly dragging the victim out and kicking him on the ground. Additional witnesses reported Godines swinging punches at the elderly victim, who was attempting to defend himself. Following the altercation, the victim was seen returning to his car visibly injured, with a split lip, blood, and dirt on his body, suggesting he had sustained significant harm during the incident.

Upon arrival, Officer Robert Mammarella found the victim coherent, but his condition deteriorated before the ambulance's arrival. The victim was transported to a Pittsburgh hospital where he died on December 1, 2011. Forensic pathologist Dr. Todd Luckasevic, who performed the autopsy, testified that the victim suffered a thalamic hemorrhage, which was likely precipitated by an adrenaline rush from the assault, leading to elevated blood pressure and subsequent bleeding. An infarction in the back of the brain, caused by atherosclerotic plaque, contributed to the victim's condition. The victim later developed pneumonia, which was determined to be the acute cause of death, although Dr. Luckasevic classified the death as a homicide due to the chain of events stemming from the assault. The assault resulted in thalamic bleeding, weakness, and aspiration, culminating in acute bronchopneumonia. The victim's medical history included hypertension and atrial fibrillation, for which he was on medication.

The appellant, represented by Public Defender Attorneys Michael Garofalo and Benjamin Goodwin, was convicted on October 10, 2013, of Third Degree Murder, Aggravated Assault, Simple Assault, Recklessly Endangering Another Person, and Disorderly Conduct related to the altercation that led to John Eicholtz's death. He received a sentence of 20 to 40 years for Third Degree Murder and a concurrent 10 to 20 years for Aggravated Assault, with no additional penalties for the other counts. Following the denial of his post-sentence motion, the appellant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, jury instructions, the admissibility of a recorded jail conversation, and aspects of his sentence. The appellate court found merit in the legality of his sentencing claim regarding the aggravated assault conviction, vacating that part of the sentence while affirming the others. The appellant did not seek further appeal to the Supreme Court.

On September 30, 2015, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition, leading to the appointment of Attorney James V. Natale, who subsequently submitted an amended petition. The PCRA court allowed Appellant to retain Dr. Neil Hoffman, a medical expert, to review medical records related to the victim’s murder. Attorney Natale later filed a motion to withdraw due to a conflict of interest, which the court granted, appointing Dianne Zerega as new counsel. Following a PCRA hearing on July 27, 2016, the court denied the petition on October 4, 2016. Appellant's appeal, which complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925 requirements, presents the issue of whether trial counsel was ineffective for not securing testimony from a forensic pathologist regarding the victim's cause of death, which Appellant claims was due to a hypertensive event leading to pneumonia.

In reviewing the PCRA court's denial, the standard applied includes determining if the order is supported by the record and free of legal error, while credibility assessments are generally upheld. To qualify for PCRA relief, the petitioner must prove that their conviction resulted from circumstances outlined in Section 9543(a)(2), including ineffective assistance of counsel, which is presumed effective unless proven otherwise. A petitioner must demonstrate (1) the underlying claim has merit, (2) counsel lacked a reasonable basis for their actions, and (3) the petitioner suffered prejudice from this deficiency. Failure to meet any prong results in the claim's dismissal. 

Appellant contends that his trial attorneys should have presented Dr. Hoffman's testimony to counter the Commonwealth’s expert, Dr. Todd Luckasevic, despite Dr. Hammer, the victim’s treating neurologist, affirming consistent findings during trial. The PCRA court ultimately concluded that Appellant did not satisfy the necessary prongs of the ineffectiveness test, despite acknowledging the potential merit of the claim.

Appellant’s trial attorneys are not considered ineffective unless their actions lacked a reasonable strategic basis. The Supreme Court has established that a claim of ineffectiveness cannot succeed by comparing the chosen trial strategy with alternative strategies not employed. In this case, Attorney Garofalo explained at the PCRA hearing the decision to present Dr. Hammer’s testimony instead of a forensic pathologist's. The defense opted for Dr. Hammer, head of stroke treatment at the hospital, believing his firsthand experience with the victim would effectively counter the Commonwealth’s expert, Dr. Luckasevic. Garofalo indicated that after discussions with Dr. Hammer and other medical professionals, they concluded that Dr. Hammer’s insights on the victim’s potential survival, had treatment not been stopped, were compelling. Dr. Hammer's qualifications, including his board certification and direct involvement in the victim's care, contributed to the decision to utilize his testimony, which was deemed substantial in explaining that the cause of death was the family’s choice to discontinue life support.

Attorney Goodwin confirmed at the PCRA hearing that he and Attorney Garofalo chose Dr. Hammer, the victim's treating physician and head of stroke care at a UPMC Hospital, as a defense expert witness. Dr. Hammer testified that the victim likely would have survived if not for the family's decision to stop administering antibiotics. The PCRA court found this decision by trial attorneys reasonable and in the client’s best interest. The appellant failed to show prejudice from the absence of a forensic pathologist, such as Dr. Hoffman, as a defense witness. The PCRA court noted that defense attorneys are not ineffective if they can effectively cross-examine prosecution experts, which they did in this case, demonstrating that the victim's death was not caused solely by trauma but by underlying medical issues and pneumonia. The court rejected the argument that merely adding a forensic pathologist would create doubt in the jury's mind. Ultimately, the court affirmed the PCRA court's denial of the appellant's petition, concluding that there was no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel.