Com. v. Mital, R., Com. v. Mital, R. No. 1935 WDA 2016

Mital was convicted after a two-day trial of risking a catastrophe, two counts of recklessly endangering another person, and criminal mischief; he was acquitted of simple assault.
The incident occurred on November 29, 2014, when his van crashed into the Kellys’ residence, causing extensive damage but no serious injuries.
He received a sentence of 1–2 years for the count of risking a catastrophe; no additional penalties on other counts.
On August 11, 2016, Mital filed a timely pro se PCRA petition; counsel was appointed and filed an amended petition.
After an evidentiary hearing, the PCRA court denied the petition and this appeal followed seeking ineffective-assistance relief for not calling a specific witness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffectiveness for failure to call witness Androkovich	Mital argues Androkovich would have shown he slept in the van before the incident.	Garofalo did not call her because testimony was irrelevant and offenses were reckless, not intentional.	Not persuasive; testimony would be irrelevant and no prejudice shown.

Commonwealth v. Wallace, 555 Pa. 397, 724 A.2d 916 (Pa. 1999) (ineffectiveness standard and prejudice analysis)
Commonwealth v. Howard, 538 Pa. 86, 645 A.2d 1300 (Pa. 1994) (instrumental in establishing basic ineffectiveness framework)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984) (prejudice prong requires probability of different outcome)
Commonwealth v. O’Bidos, 849 A.2d 243, 249 (Pa. Super. 2004) (test for failure to call a witness requires relevance and prejudice showing)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 811 A.2d 1057, 1060 (Pa. Super. 2002) (presumption of effectiveness; baseless claims admit no relief)
Commonwealth v. Halley, 870 A.2d 795 (Pa. 2005) (standard of review for PCRA orders)