Com. v. Raiber, A.
Com. v. Raiber, A. No. 1315 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 28, 2017Background
- Raiber was convicted by a jury of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, indecent exposure, corruption of a minor, multiple simple assaults, and false imprisonment (2013).
- He was found to be a Sexually Violent Predator and sentenced to 29+ years to 72 years, then resentenced to 16.5 to 46.5 years after a post-sentence motion (2013–2014).
- Appellant filed a timely PCRA petition (July 9, 2015) and amended petitions in 2016; the PCRA court held a hearing and denied relief (August 3, 2016).
- Trial evidence centered on J.W.’s December 2011 accusations; substantial testimony described physical and sexual abuse, with physical evidence recovered from Raiber’s trailer and witnesses including family members and law enforcement.
- The PCRA issues focus on ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) for (a) not eliciting suspicion about J.W. snooping through a drawer, (b) not calling N.U. to testify about showering and alleged acts, and (c) not eliciting Beth Leevy’s testimony about the shower incident; the Superior Court affirmed denial of PCRA relief.
- The Court addresses timeliness, adopts Kimball’s IAC standard, and ultimately affirms the PCRA court’s decision on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IAC: failure to elicit Nancy Raiber’s dresser-drawer testimony | Raiber’s drawer-open fact could support a non-inference explanation for J.W.’s knowledge | Drawer-open fact is tenuous; no link to closet or abuse shown | No arguable merit; PCRA court correct; claim defeated |
| IAC: failure to call N.U. to testify (shower incident / observations) | N.U.’s testimony would have supported defense on showering and non-abuse | N.U. was an unreliable, anxious minor; decision not to call had reasonable basis | Partially arguable merit for shower/testimony; however, court found reasonable basis and rejected prejudice; no relief |
| IAC: failure to elicit Beth Leevy testimony (shower incident) | Leevy would corroborate non-abuse and non-entry during shower | Testimony cumulative and potentially conflicting; not prejudicial | Cumulative and not prejudicial; no relief |
| Prejudice under IAC doctrine (overall) | Cumulative omissions could have changed outcome | Omissions were either non-prejudicial or justified by strategy | No reasonable probability of different outcome; PCRA relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA IAC claims and deference to factual findings)
- Commonwealth v. Kimball, 724 A.2d 326 (Pa. 1999) (IAC standard with three-prong test; prejudice required)
- Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. 2014) (failure to prove any prong defeats IAC claim)
- Commonwealth v. Smolko, 666 A.2d 672 (Pa. Super. 1995) (witness-availability/preparation considerations in IAC)
- Commonwealth v. Van Horn, 797 A.2d 983 (Pa. Super. 2002) (propriety of character testimony)