Com. v. Barker, I., Com. v. Barker, I. No. 1707 EDA 2016

In July 2012 Isaiah Barker participated in two Lehigh County commercial robberies; he was charged with multiple offenses and pled guilty to two counts of robbery on December 6, 2012 pursuant to a plea agreement.
The Commonwealth agreed in the plea to bind the court to a minimum sentence not exceeding the standard guideline range and not to pursue mandatory minimums or other counts.
On February 15, 2013 the trial court sentenced Barker to consecutive terms of 4½ to 10 years each (aggregate 9–20 years).
Barker sought collateral relief under the PCRA, alleging (1) ineffective assistance of guilty-plea/sentencing counsel for failing to obtain mental health or drug/alcohol evaluations and (2) that his plea was invalid because it relied on avoidance of mandatory minimums rendered unconstitutional by Alleyne.
The PCRA court held evidentiary hearings (counsel, mother, and a psychologist testified), denied relief, and the Superior Court affirmed the denial on appeal.

Issue	Barker's Argument	Commonwealth/Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not obtaining mental-health or D/A evaluations before sentencing	Potts knew of ADHD and substance abuse history; failure to obtain evaluations lacked reasonable basis and prejudiced Barker at sentencing	Counsel had a reasonable strategy: present Barker positively, avoid a "double-edged" professional evaluation that could harm mitigation; strategic choices are given deference	Denied — counsel’s decision was a reasonable strategy and not ineffective
Whether Barker may withdraw his plea because it was premised on avoidance of mandatory minimums post-Alleyne	Alleyne and progeny eliminated mandatory minimum exposure, so the plea’s factual/legal premise is invalid and not waivable	A later change in law does not render an intelligently made plea invalid; counsel not ineffective for failing to predict changes in law	Denied — plea remains valid; change in law does not allow withdrawal; counsel not ineffective for failing to anticipate Alleyne

Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1970) (a voluntary, intelligent plea remains valid despite later changes in law affecting the plea’s premise)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (mandatory minimums that increase punishment based on judge-found facts implicate Sixth Amendment)
Commonwealth v. Bennett, 57 A.3d 1185 (Pa. 2012) (counsel not ineffective for failing to foresee a change in law)
Commonwealth v. Chimel, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (ineffectiveness test: arguable merit, no reasonable basis, and prejudice)
Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. 2013) (standard and scope of appellate review of PCRA denials)