Com. v. Mitchell, F., Com. v. Mitchell, F. No. 1060 WDA 2016

Mitchell was convicted by a jury of multiple sexual offenses against a minor and was sentenced; the trial court also found him a sexually violent predator (SVP) and ordered lifetime SORNA registration.
On direct appeal the Superior Court affirmed convictions but vacated the mandatory-minimum portion of the sentence; Mitchell was resentenced.
Mitchell filed a pro se PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) sentencing counsel failed to inform him of his right to a court‑appointed psychological expert for the SVP determination; (2) trial counsel waited until the morning of trial to view the minor’s videotaped forensic interview.
At the PCRA hearing sentencing counsel testified she informed Mitchell of his SVP rights including the right to an expert; Mitchell was uncertain whether he had requested an expert.
Trial counsel testified she reviewed discovery (including victim drawings) about a week before trial and viewed the videotape the morning of trial, finding the tape consistent with prior discovery and witness testimony.
The PCRA court denied relief, finding counsel credible and that Mitchell failed to prove arguable merit or prejudice; the Superior Court affirmed on that basis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentencing counsel was ineffective for failing to inform Mitchell of his right to a court‑appointed psychological expert for SVP proceedings	Mitchell argued he was not informed of his right to a court‑appointed expert and thus was prejudiced at the SVP stage	Commonwealth (and counsel) argued counsel informed Mitchell of his rights and Mitchell was uncertain whether he requested an expert; counsel’s testimony was credible	Denied — PCRA court credited counsel; Mitchell failed to prove arguable merit or prejudice
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for waiting until the morning of trial to view the victim’s videotaped forensic interview	Mitchell argued late viewing prevented adequate preparation and prejudiced his defense	Commonwealth argued counsel had reviewed discovery a week earlier, the videotape added no new information, and the tape corroborated other evidence	Denied — no prejudice shown because video was consistent with discovery and testimony

Commonwealth v. Payne, 794 A.2d 902 (Pa. Super.) (standard of review for PCRA ineffective-assistance claims)
Commonwealth v. Curnutte, 871 A.2d 839 (Pa. Super.) (indigent SVP defendants entitled to court‑appointed expert)
Commonwealth v. Bracey, 795 A.2d 935 (Pa.) (three‑prong test for ineffective assistance under PCRA)