Com. v. Maple, J., Com. v. Maple, J. No. 1919 WDA 2015

In 2006 Jason Maple shot and killed William Teck and fired at Patrick Altman; Maple recruited accomplices and planned the attack after allegations against Vinsek. Several co‑defendants testified against Maple at trial.
Maple was convicted of first‑degree murder, multiple conspiracy counts, attempted homicide and related offenses; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
Maple filed a PCRA petition in 2014 arguing trial counsel was ineffective for two reasons: (1) failing to call an expert on alcoholism/intoxication to negate specific intent; and (2) failing to object to jury instructions and special interrogatories concerning the conspiracy "overt act" requirement.
The PCRA court denied relief on November 3, 2015; Maple appealed to the Superior Court.
The Superior Court reviewed de novo legal questions and deferred to factual findings supported by the record, ultimately affirming the PCRA denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Maple)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Counsel)	Held
I. Ineffective assistance for not calling intoxication expert	Dr. King would have shown Maple was an alcoholic whose intoxication negated specific intent to kill and explained memory loss/blackout	Record witnesses described Maple as sober; planning, recruitment, and non‑routine conduct undermined any voluntary intoxication defense; expert testimony would not have aided defense	Denied — counsel not ineffective; expert testimony would not have changed outcome
II. Ineffective assistance for not objecting to jury instructions and special interrogatories re: overt act	Court’s instructions and interrogatories allowed a verdict based on overt acts different from those in the information, creating a variance that counsel should have objected to	Information provided common‑sense notice; Maple did not show prejudice, surprise, or impaired ability to prepare a defense; no authority requires proof be limited to overt acts listed in the information	Denied — counsel not ineffective; no prejudicial variance shown

Commonwealth v. Reyes‑Rodriguez, 111 A.3d 775 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for PCRA appeals)
Commonwealth v. Simpson, 112 A.3d 1194 (Pa. 2015) (ineffective assistance standard — right to effective counsel)
Commonwealth v. Patterson, 143 A.3d 394 (Pa. Super. 2016) (presumption that trial counsel is effective)
Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601 (Pa. 2015) (three‑part test for ineffective assistance claims)
Commonwealth v. Thomas, 44 A.3d 12 (Pa. 2012) (requirements to establish counsel ineffective for failing to call a witness)
Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501 (Pa. 2005) (absent witness testimony must be shown to be beneficial to prove ineffective assistance)
Commonwealth v. Einhorn, 911 A.2d 960 (Pa. Super. 2006) (criminal information read in a common‑sense manner to provide notice)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 912 A.2d 268 (Pa. 2006) (variance between information and proof not fatal absent prejudice)
United States v. Adamo, 534 F.2d 31 (3d Cir. 1976) (prosecution not limited to overt acts listed in the information)