Com. v. Rawls, S.
Com. v. Rawls, S. No. 1539 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 26, 2017Background
- Sameeh Rawls was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, and PIC after he and a co-defendant fired into a crowd, killing one and wounding two.
- Rawls received life without parole on June 10, 2010; direct appeal challenged sufficiency and a denial of mistrial after a two-week mid-trial recess and a critical newspaper article published during that recess.
- The Superior Court affirmed on direct appeal; Rawls’s judgment became final on June 19, 2012. He then filed a timely PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.
- Rawls claimed the Commonwealth offered a 20–40 year plea to third-degree murder which trial counsel discouraged him from accepting; he also alleged appellate counsel failed to properly brief the mistrial/recess issue.
- The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing, credited trial counsel’s testimony that no plea offer was made, found Rawls’s testimony not credible, and denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Rawls' Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel ineffective for advising rejection of alleged 20–40 yr plea | Trial counsel told Rawls there was an offer; Rawls wanted to accept but counsel convinced him to go to trial | Trial counsel testified no such offer was made; court records show no plea recorded; court credited counsel | Denied — Rawls failed to prove a plea offer; credibility findings supported the record, so claim lacked arguable merit |
| Appellate counsel ineffective for failing to properly brief mistrial claim (mid-trial recess/newspaper article) | Appellate counsel did not adequately argue prejudice from the recess/article; jurors may have seen article | Record shows parties knew of recess; court instructed jurors; Rawls offered only speculation and no specific prejudice | Denied — underlying claim lacked arguable merit; no prejudice shown and jury presumed to follow instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. 2013) (standard/scope of PCRA review)
- Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (scope of review and record viewed in light most favorable to prevailing party)
- Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (three-part ineffective assistance test)
- Commonwealth v. Barnett, 121 A.3d 534 (Pa. Super. 2015) (arguable merit explained)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (de novo review of PCRA legal conclusions)
- Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 720 A.2d 70 (Pa. Super. 1998) (appellate deference to PCRA credibility findings)
- Commonwealth v. Harmon, 738 A.2d 1023 (Pa. Super. 1999) (credibility findings will be upheld when supported)
- Commonwealth v. Windslowe, 158 A.3d 698 (Pa. Super. 2017) (mistrial is extreme remedy within trial court discretion)
- Commonwealth v. King, 959 A.2d 405 (Pa. Super. 2008) (mistrial required only when prejudice deprives fair trial)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (presumption that jury follows court instructions)
- Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 960 A.2d 473 (Pa. Super. 2008) (meritless claims do not establish appellate counsel ineffectiveness)