Com. v. Ford, J., 2332 EDA 2015

Background

Ford was convicted of first-degree murder and related offenses in 2009 and sentenced to life imprisonment plus multiple years; direct appeal affirmed and PA Supreme Court denied Allowance of Appeal.
He timely filed a PCRA petition in November 2011, amended it in 2014, and a supplemental petition in July 2015; the PCRA court dismissed the petition July 20, 2015 without a hearing.
The decedent Wright and victim Wilcox were shot on December 5, 2006; Ford gave multiple statements to police in Atlanta and Philadelphia, with suppression challenges focusing on voluntariness and Miranda warnings.
Ford raised multiple ineffective-assistance claims: involuntariness of a second confession, deprivation of counsel during questioning, self-defense investigation, mental-health evidence, presenting additional testimony, suppression of prison-cell evidence, and improper closing and sentencing arguments.
The Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court, applying the Mason standard for ineffective assistance and finding each claim lacking merit or procedurally waived.
Key factual and procedural history, including prior appellate rulings, informs the court’s disposition to deny relief on all raised issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffectiveness for challenging voluntariness of second confession	Ford argues second confession was involuntary due to six-hour detention.	State contends voluntariness was properly determined; Davenport is overruled by Perez.	No relief; voluntariness properly analyzed under Perez/Mason standards.
Ineffectiveness for deprivation of counsel during critical stages	Ford asserts he was deprived of counsel during transport/interrogation.	Record shows Miranda warnings were given and counsel's presence not mandated for each questioning.	No relief; record supports admissibility and proper advisement of rights.
Ineffectiveness for failing to investigate self-defense defense	Trial counsel failed to pursue self-defense/imperfect self-defense.	Defense theory was pursued; self-defense theory supported by evidence and jury instruction.	No relief; defense strategy adequately pursued and supported by record.
Ineffectiveness for failing to retain mental-health expert	Counsel should have retained a mental-health expert to challenge specific intent.	Strategy focused on self-defense, not mental-health defect; expert unnecessary.	No relief; mental-state defense not required given strategy and record.
Ineffectiveness for various trial/appellate failures (closing, limiting instruction, sentencing)	Counsel failed on closing argument, limiting instructions, and sentencing choices.	Record shows objections, a closing, and reviewing on appeal; no prejudice shown.	No relief; claims inadequately developed or unpersuasive.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Davenport, 370 A.2d 301 (Pa. 1977) (older rule on voluntariness later overruled by Perez; totality of circumstances governs confessions)
Commonwealth v. Perez, 845 A.2d 779 (Pa. 2004) (totality of circumstances governs voluntariness; not per se based on time held)
Commonwealth v. Housman, 986 A.2d 822 (Pa. 2009) (reaffirms totality-of-the-circumstances approach to voluntariness)
Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601 (Pa. 2015) (ineffective-assistance standard with three-prong test; prejudice required)