Com. v. Graham, P., 1194 WDA 2016

Background

Defendant Paul R. Graham Jr. was convicted by jury of multiple sexual-offense counts for abuse of his then-nine-year-old niece occurring roughly 2003–2005; convictions were entered September 17, 2013.
After initial sentencing and post-sentence proceedings, the Superior Court vacated and remanded for resentencing; Graham was resentenced July 28, 2015 to an aggregate 46–92 years plus SORNA registration.
Graham did not file a direct appeal from the resentencing; he filed a pro se PCRA petition on September 24, 2015 raising numerous ineffective-assistance claims (trial, appellate, and PCRA counsel) and prosecutorial-misconduct claims.
Appointed PCRA counsel reviewed the record and filed a Turner/Finley (no‑merit) letter and request to withdraw; the PCRA court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the PCRA petition on July 21, 2016.
Graham appealed pro se; the Superior Court reviewed the record and the PCRA court’s thorough opinion and affirmed dismissal, adopting the PCRA court’s reasoning that Graham’s claims were meritless and that PCRA counsel acted appropriately in filing a no‑merit letter.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Graham)	Defendant's Argument (PCRA/Commonwealth)	Held
1) Trial counsel failed to investigate/prepare	Frick did not obtain/work records, obituary, witness interviews, or call experts to rebut allegations or impeach timing/details	Counsel had reasonable strategic bases: some documents would hurt defendant, expert/medical testimony unnecessary, and many investigative lines had low value; no prejudice shown	Claim meritless; no ineffective assistance shown
2) Trial counsel failed to object to prosecutor’s opening/closing (prosecutorial misconduct)	Prosecutor vouched for the victim, offered improper credibility/expert‑type statements, and made unsupported factual assertions (e.g., defendant "laid off")	Statements, read in context, were permissible credibility argument and appeals to jurors’ common sense; some remarks were supported by testimony; objections were not required	Claim meritless; counsel had reasonable basis for not objecting
3) Counsel failed to raise insufficiency of evidence as to dates/rape charge	Commonwealth did not fix specific dates for rape within multi‑year window; defense could not prepare or contest specific incidents	Continuous‑abuse framework permits date ranges; victim testimony alone can suffice; precedent allows ranges for child abuse cases	Claim meritless; insufficiency argument would lack arguable merit
4) Ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel for filing no‑merit letter / not interviewing client	PCRA counsel (Egers) failed to interview Graham and improperly advocated against claims, usurping defendant’s interests	Torres and Finley permit withdrawal via a reasoned no‑merit letter; interview is not per se required; counsel reviewed the full record and had reasonable basis	Claim meritless; PCRA counsel’s actions were proper under governing precedent

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Steele, 961 A.2d 786 (Pa. 2008) (three‑part ineffective assistance standard)
Commonwealth v. Torres, 630 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Super. 1993) (counsel need not always interview client before filing Anders/Finley withdrawal)
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw when claims lack merit)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural protections when appointed counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standards for evaluating claims of ineffective assistance by PCRA counsel)
Commonwealth v. Devlin, 333 A.2d 888 (Pa. 1975) (due process considerations when date of offense is vague; date must be fixed with reasonable certainty)
Commonwealth v. Brooks, 7 A.3d 852 (Pa. Super. 2010) (continuous‑abuse date‑range approach acceptable for child‑abuse prosecutions)
Commonwealth v. Chester, 587 A.2d 1367 (Pa. 1991) (definition and test for prosecutorial misconduct)