Com. v. Rizor, J., Com. v. Rizor, J. No. 291 WDA 2016

Background

In 2004 Jessica Rizor gave birth secretly at home, disposed of the newborn in plastic bags, and the child died of asphyxiation; Rizor gave a written statement to police.
Rizor was charged with murder and related crimes, rejected a Commonwealth plea offer (5½ to 30 years for guilty but mentally ill to third-degree murder) after a plea colloquy warned of a life sentence if convicted.
At trial Rizor was convicted of first-degree murder, concealing the death of a child, and abuse of a corpse and sentenced to life without parole; direct appeals were denied.
Rizor filed a PCRA petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for advising rejection of the plea based on a planned mental-health/diminished-capacity defense that the court later precluded.
The PCRA court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing; Rizor appealed, arguing the plea rejection was induced by counsel’s assurances and that pretrial exclusion of mental-health evidence eliminated counsel’s strategy.
The Superior Court vacated the PCRA court’s dismissal and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, concluding Rizor raised genuine issues of material fact on ineffective assistance and prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Rizor)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / PCRA court)	Held
Whether PCRA court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on IAC claim	Counsel advised Rizor to reject plea based on mental-health defense; after court precluded that evidence counsel didn’t update her, so she rejected plea on false premise	Plea colloquy shows Rizor understood risks and wasn’t coerced; counsel not ineffective as matter of law	Court: PCRA court abused discretion; remand for evidentiary hearing — genuine issue of material fact exists
Whether plea colloquy precludes IAC claim about plea rejection	Rizor: colloquy demonstrates she relied on counsel’s advice, not coercion; colloquy doesn’t negate ineffective-assistance claim	PCRA court: Rizor’s on-record statements that she wasn’t pressured defeat claim	Court: Colloquy does not refute claim; "pressure" is not dispositive for IAC
Whether counsel’s planned mental-health defense provided reasonable basis to reject plea after preclusion order	Rizor: counsel lost ability to present exculpatory mental-health testimony after preclusion, so advice lacked reasonable basis	PCRA court: counsel cannot be ineffective merely for failing to present cognizable defense	Court: Preclusion undercuts reasonableness of advice; this bears on counsel’s objective reasonableness and merits hearing
Whether prejudice shown (reasonable probability of different outcome)	Rizor: But for counsel’s advice she would have accepted plea and received 5½–30 years instead of LWOP	Commonwealth: no hearing needed; claim lacks arguable merit/not established on record	Court: Sufficient prejudice alleged to merit hearing because plea acceptance would have produced lesser sentence

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. 2013) (standard/scope of appellate review of PCRA denial)
Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (scope of review limited to PCRA court findings and record)
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (de novo review of PCRA legal conclusions)
Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (three-prong ineffective-assistance test)
Commonwealth v. Jordan, 772 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 2001) (PCRA court may decline hearing if claim is patently frivolous)
Commonwealth v. Hardcastle, 701 A.2d 541 (Pa. 1997) (appellate duty to examine whether genuine issues of material fact exist)
Commonwealth v. Stewart, 84 A.3d 701 (Pa. Super. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion review of denial of PCRA hearing; prejudice standard)
Commonwealth v. Bauhammers, 92 A.3d 708 (Pa. 2014) (no hearing required if issue lacks arguable merit/prejudice)
Commonwealth v. Barnett, 121 A.3d 534 (Pa. Super. 2015) (arguable merit defined as accurate factual statements that could establish relief)