Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Alexander G. Keaton - Pennsylvania

  1. #1
    Guest
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,534

    Alexander G. Keaton - Pennsylvania

    Facts of the Crime:

    Alexander Keaton was convicted of first-degree murder for the 1992 brutal strangulation of 31-year-old Sherrill Ann Hall. He also was convicted of kidnapping and possessing an instrument of crime, and two counts each of rape, aggravated assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, false imprisonment and unlawful restraint, for assaulting two other victims who survived.

    On November 29, 1994, Keaton was sentenced to death in Philadelphia County.

  2. #2
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    On November 18, 2011, Keaton filed a habeas petition in Federal District Court.

    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/pen...v07225/453929/

    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______


    Pennsylvania v. Keaton

    Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

    Opinion Date: May 30, 2012

    Appellant Alexander Keaton appealed the denial of his application for post-conviction relief; the Commonwealth cross-appealed the grant of a new penalty phase based on trial counsel's ineffectiveness for failing to present mitigating mental health evidence. In 1992, Appellant was charged with rape and related offenses stemming from the sexual assault of Nadine S. One month later, the body of Appellant's ex-girlfriend was found. After waiving his rights, Appellant gave a written statement incriminating himself in the killing, and he was charged with murder. Appellant sexually assaulted two other women, making self-incriminating statements. The Commonwealth moved to consolidate the charges for all victims. Over defense objection, the trial court granted the motion. Prior to trial, Appellant moved to suppress his statements; the motion was denied, and Appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of first degree murder, rape, and related offenses. At the penalty phase, the Commonwealth sought to prove several aggravating circumstances. The jury found no mitigating circumstances and one aggravating circumstance. Accordingly, Appellant was sentenced to death. Appellant timely filed a pro se PCRA petition and received appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition alleging all prior counsel's ineffectiveness for not raising numerous guilt and penalty phase issues. The PCRA court held a hearing on the sole issue of trial counsel's ineffectiveness for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase. The PCRA court rejected Appellant's guilt phase claims, and denied him a new trial. However, the court concluded trial counsel was ineffective for failing to develop and present mitigating evidence, and granted a new penalty hearing. The PCRA court's opinion did not address several of the issues in detail, it merely stated it found Appellant's claims of guilt phase error meritless and would not further discuss them; the only penalty phase issue the court addressed was trial counsel's ineffectiveness. Without conclusive findings regarding whether Appellant was mentally retarded, the Supreme Court could not address his "Atkins" claim; accordingly, the Court remanded for the PCRA court to consider that claim's merits. The PCRA court complied, and rejected Appellant's claim of mental retardation. On appeal of that decision, the Supreme Court determined that there was a factual question regarding whether Appellant invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel in 1992 when he made his self-incriminating statements. The Court remanded this issue to the PCRA court for determination of this issue and for the parties to address the applicability of the applicable case law if the court determined Appellant did invoke his right. As to Appellant's remaining guilt phase claims, the Supreme Court affirmed the PCRA court's denial of relief.

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/docu...aReversals.pdf
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  3. #3
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Pennsylvania v. Keaton

    Opinion Date: December 17, 2013

    Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

    Appellant Alexander Keaton appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He claimed the PCRA court erroneously denied the underlying claim that his invoking a Fifth Amendment right to counsel during custodial interrogations on a rape charge invalidated his uncounseled, incriminating statements given weeks later in an unrelated murder and rape case. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court found appellant never invoked his right to counsel in the initial rape case, and as such, the PCRA court did not err in denying appellant relief.
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  4. #4
    Senior Member CnCP Legend JLR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,740
    Resentenced to life on the 12th of June 2014.

    https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/p...2018_04-23.pdf

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •