Com. v. Rice, S.
2026 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 7, 2016Background
- On Jan. 26, 2011, Samuel Rice sold a brick of heroin to Stephen Mackowski; Mackowski attempted to drive away without paying, Rice retrieved a gun and shot Mackowski, who died. An eyewitness observed part of the incident.
- Rice was charged with homicide and related firearm offenses; he pled guilty to homicide generally and a degree-of-guilt hearing found him guilty of third-degree murder.
- Rice was sentenced to 17.5–35 years for third-degree murder plus additional terms for firearm and reckless endangerment offenses; restitution later set at $8,873.05.
- Rice appealed; this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence. He subsequently filed a pro se PCRA petition (later amended) alleging trial counsel was ineffective for stipulating to prior trial testimony of two Commonwealth witnesses at the degree-of-guilt hearing.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing, finding Rice failed to show prejudice from counsel’s stipulation; Rice appealed and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Rice's Argument | Commonwealth / PCRA Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rice’s IAC claim is cognizable under the PCRA | IAC claim timely and cognizable; he is serving sentence | IAC claims are cognizable under the PCRA | Cognizable under the PCRA |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for stipulating to prior testimony of Acrie and Selzer at the degree-of-guilt hearing | Counsel had no reasonable basis; stipulation denied confrontation/cross-examination and likely changed outcome to third-degree murder instead of voluntary manslaughter | Counsel had reasonable strategic basis; weaknesses in witnesses’ testimony were already apparent on the record and court was aware of credibility issues; Rice failed to prove prejudice | No ineffective assistance — petition dismissed without a hearing; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (three-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Lesko, 15 A.3d 345 (Pa. 2011) (criteria for PCRA cognizability)
- Commonwealth v. Wah, 42 A.3d 335 (Pa. Super. 2012) (PCRA court may dismiss without hearing when no genuine issues of material fact)
- Commonwealth v. Reed, 42 A.3d 314 (Pa. Super. 2012) (prejudice standard for IAC: reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Commonwealth v. Simpson, 66 A.3d 253 (Pa. 2013) (failure to satisfy any IAC prong requires rejection)
- Commonwealth v. Rega, 933 A.2d 997 (Pa. 2007) (burden of proving ineffectiveness rests with appellant)
- Commonwealth v. Phillips, 31 A.3d 317 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 993 A.2d 289 (Pa. Super. 2010) (right to evidentiary hearing on PCRA petition not absolute)