285 A.3d 901
Pa. Super. Ct.2022Background
- Daniel Riley was convicted after a 2015 jury trial of first-degree murder and related offenses and received a mandatory life sentence.
- Riley filed a timely pro se PCRA petition; appointed counsel and later private PCRA counsel (Mosser, assisted by Hockensmith) amended the petition alleging (1) trial counsel ineffectiveness for failing to investigate/call alibi witnesses and (2) a Confrontation Clause issue.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and then dismissed the petition because Riley failed to provide witness certifications required by 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(d)(1); a planned evidentiary hearing was canceled after counsel withdrew a certification.
- Procedural irregularities over filing of the notice of appeal led to a Superior Court panel initially affirming dismissal; the Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal and remanded to the Superior Court for reconsideration in light of Commonwealth v. Bradley.
- On remand the Superior Court, applying Bradley, vacated the PCRA-court dismissal and remanded so current PCRA counsel can file an amended petition compliant with § 9545(d)(1) and so the PCRA court can develop the record and hold an evidentiary hearing on the layered ineffectiveness claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a petitioner may raise PCRA-counsel ineffectiveness for the first time on collateral appeal | Riley: Under Bradley, a petitioner with new counsel may raise PCRA-counsel ineffectiveness on appeal | Commonwealth/PCRA court: such claims were historically required to be raised below and are waived if not pleaded | Held: Bradley authorizes raising PCRA-counsel ineffectiveness at first opportunity on collateral appeal; claim may be considered and remand for development appropriate |
| Whether original PCRA counsel (Mosser) was ineffective for failing to obtain witness certifications and plead substantive elements re brother and uncle as alibi witnesses | Riley: Mosser failed to obtain required § 9545(d)(1) certifications and failed to plead availability, willingness, and prejudice, undermining the underlying claim | Commonwealth/PCRA court: absence of certifications and substantive pleading meant testimony was inadmissible and claim waived; dismissal proper | Held: Superior Court vacated dismissal and remanded for current counsel to amend petition and for PCRA court development—efficacy of Mosser not resolved on present record |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call alibi witnesses | Riley: Trial counsel did not interview or call three identified alibi witnesses who could place him elsewhere | Commonwealth: Underlying claim was not adequately pleaded below and witness testimony was barred by § 9545(d)(1) defects | Held: Court did not decide merits; remand ordered so the PCRA court can develop record and evaluate the layered ineffectiveness claim (trial-counsel prong) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2021) (permits raising PCRA-counsel ineffectiveness at first opportunity on collateral appeal and explains when such claims "spring" from timely petitions)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 855 A.2d 682 (Pa. 2004) (discusses procedural requirements for raising claims in PCRA context)
- Commonwealth v. Stewart, 84 A.3d 701 (Pa. Super. 2013) (failure to investigate known witnesses can present arguable merit for ineffectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Matias, 63 A.3d 807 (Pa. Super. 2013) (explains requirements to show prejudice and elements to prove failure to call a witness)
- Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (reiterates presumption of counsel effectiveness and the Strickland framework)