Commonwealth v. Antoine Alphonzo Hunter
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress iPhone evidence after police, without a warrant, powered on the phone and called a suspected number to confirm it rang, then used that confirmation to obtain a search warrant.
Summary by John A. Julian, Esq. Updated October 1, 2026.
- CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
- Docket372 MDA 2025
- Citation2026 Pa. Super. 48
- DecidedMarch 17, 2026
- DispositionReversed; new trial ordered
- OpinionRead the opinion | Court PDF
What the court held
The court reversed the dismissal of a timely first petition, vacated the second-degree murder conviction, and ordered a new trial. Under Riley v. California, decided before the 2017 trial, powering on and calling the phone was a search requiring a warrant; Commonwealth v. Fulton (2018) merely applied Riley, so counsel cannot be excused for failing to anticipate it. The warrant affidavit's probable cause depended entirely on the unlawful confirmation, so the extracted texts, photos, and lyrics were fruit of the poisonous tree. Counsel could not recall the law or why he did not file the motion, and prejudice was shown because the phone evidence was the crux of a case in which most eyewitnesses did not identify the defendant.
Why it matters. The change-in-the-law defense to ineffectiveness fails when a later decision only applies existing precedent. Trace suppression law to its true origin date rather than accepting the Commonwealth's account of when the rule was announced.
Separate opinions
Judge Stabile concurred in the result without opinion.
Does this decision affect a case you know? The window to act on a new decision can be as short as one year from the date it was announced. Request a case review or call (215) 568-0607.
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the opinion before relying on it.