CHISOM v. SMITH, 1:21-cv-00773

On July 2, 2015, Dondre M. Chisom shot and killed Christopher Williams; he later claimed self-defense.
On June 19, 2017 Chisom entered a counseled, negotiated guilty plea to third-degree murder and possession-prohibited, agreeing to a 25–50 year aggregate sentence.
Chisom filed no direct appeal. He filed a pro se PCRA petition (Dec. 28, 2017) alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel, coercion, failure to raise mitigating evidence (recent brain surgery), and an after‑discovered videotape; he asked for reinstatement of appellate rights.
PCRA counsel moved to withdraw. The PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss, denied relief (June 10, 2020), and the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed (Feb. 22, 2021).
Chisom filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (filed Mar. 29, 2021, transferred to Middle District of PA). He raised three ineffective-assistance claims: (1) induced plea after new evidence; (2) plea to an illegal sentence; (3) counsel failed to file a post‑sentence motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance — induced plea / after‑discovered evidence	Counsel induced Chisom to accept plea despite new videotape and failure to press mitigating brain‑surgery evidence	Plea was knowing and voluntary; video was known at plea; no showing counsel’s conduct caused Chisom to plead rather than go to trial	Denied — state courts reasonably found plea voluntary, video was not after‑discovered, and Chisom failed to show Strickland prejudice
Ineffective assistance — plea to illegal sentence (Ground Two)	Sentence was allegedly illegally prescribed because a factual finding affecting punishment should have been charged as an element	Claim was never presented in state court; PCRA statute of limitations expired so claim is procedurally defaulted	Dismissed as procedurally defaulted — petitioner gave no cause or prejudice and asserted no actual‑innocence gateway
Ineffective assistance — failure to file post‑sentence motion	Counsel failed to file requested post‑sentence motions, depriving Chisom of appellate rights	Failure to file post‑sentence motions is not per se ineffective; petitioner must show prejudice (that court would have granted relief)	Denied — petitioner failed to plead or prove prejudice; no genuine issue meriting an evidentiary hearing

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: deficiency and prejudice)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for guilty‑plea counsel errors requires showing petitioner would have gone to trial)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (counsel errors that affect the decision to plead analyzed under Hill/Strickland principles)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (guilty plea must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent)
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (plea must be voluntary and made with understanding of consequences)
O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (exhaustion requires presenting claims to state courts on direct appeal or collateral review)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (procedural default doctrine and cause/prejudice standard)
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual‑innocence gateway to overcome procedural default)
Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971) (federal claim must be fairly presented to state courts for exhaustion)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standards for issuing a certificate of appealability)