Com. v. Ramos, X., Com. v. Ramos, X. No. 1746 MDA 2016

On July 29, 2013, M.W., a 13-year-old relative who had been babysitting at Appellant Xavier Ramos’s home, was sexually assaulted by Ramos while she slept on a sofa and later on his bed. The assault lasted about eight minutes.
Ramos was tried in absentia after failing to appear; a jury convicted him of aggravated indecent assault, corruption of minors, and indecent assault. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 6 to 15 years’ imprisonment.
Ramos filed a pro se PCRA petition; counsel was appointed and filed an amended PCRA petition raising ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims. The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief. Ramos appealed the denial.
Ramos’s two principal claims: (1) trial counsel failed to adequately review discovery and interview/present two stepchildren (T.L. and C.L.) who were in the home during the incident; (2) trial counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence at sentencing (suicide attempt and prior sexual assault).
The PCRA court found Ramos failed to prove prejudice from counsel’s alleged failures because the purported alibi/eyewitness stepchildren did not testify at the PCRA hearing and Ramos had not shown how counsel could have uncovered or how sentencing would have been different with the other mitigating evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview/present household witnesses T.L. and C.L.	Ramos: counsel unreasonably failed to interview witnesses identified in discovery who were present during the incident, and their testimony would have been exculpatory.	Commonwealth: counsel reasonably acted; even if unreasonable, Ramos cannot show prejudice because the witnesses did not testify at the PCRA hearing and their expected testimony is speculative.	Court held Ramos failed to prove prejudice; denial of PCRA relief affirmed.
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence at sentencing (suicide attempt and prior assault)	Ramos: counsel should have developed and presented his suicide attempt and prior sexual assault as mitigation.	Commonwealth: trial court was aware counsel had raised the suicide attempt previously; Ramos never told counsel about the prior assault and offers no showing counsel could have discovered it or that prejudice resulted.	Court held Ramos failed to show counsel’s omission caused prejudice; sentencing relief denied.

Commonwealth v. Ramos, 135 A.3d 668 (Pa. Super. 2015) (prior decision setting out facts of the underlying offense)
Commonwealth v. Orlando, 156 A.3d 1274 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2015) (PCRA review principles)
Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 114 A.3d 401 (Pa. 2015) (three-prong ineffectiveness test)
Commonwealth v. Pierce, 786 A.2d 203 (Pa. 2001) (framework for assessing counsel ineffectiveness)
Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 720 A.2d 79 (Pa. 1998) (deference to PCRA credibility findings)
Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (de novo review of legal conclusions)
Commonwealth v. Basemore, 744 A.2d 717 (Pa. 2000) (counsel’s duty to investigate)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (constitutional standard for ineffective assistance)
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986) (importance of pretrial investigation)
Commonwealth v. Stewart, 84 A.3d 701 (Pa. Super. 2013) (failure to investigate known witnesses can be unreasonable)
Commonwealth v. Pander, 100 A.3d 626 (Pa. Super. 2014) (elements required to prove failure-to-investigate witness claim)
Commonwealth v. Dennis, 950 A.2d 945 (Pa. 2008) (cannot show prejudice without PCRA hearing testimony of omitted witnesses)
Commonwealth v. Simpson, 66 A.3d 253 (Pa. 2013) (failure to prove any Pierce prong defeats ineffectiveness claim)