Com. v. Smith, E.
Com. v. Smith, E. No. 487 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 30, 2017Background
- Evan Smith was convicted of multiple sexual offenses against minors and sentenced above mandatory minimums; he filed a timely PCRA petition challenging his conviction and sentence.
- Trial counsel was William Graff; appellate counsel on direct appeal was Heather Reiner.
- Key trial evidence included a used condom found in a drop ceiling; DNA from the condom was admitted pursuant to a stipulation acknowledging possible cross-contamination and that no seminal fluid was detected.
- Smith alleged trial counsel failed to properly challenge the DNA, failed to investigate/call a potential witness (Robert Fleshman), and that counsel (trial and appellate) failed to raise an Alleyne-based sentencing challenge.
- Smith also sought a new trial based on an unsigned, undated post-trial letter from the complaining witness recanting her accusations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance for failing to properly contest DNA evidence | Graff should have further investigated the condom (age/condition), identified cell types on it, and more vigorously pursued contamination theory | Graff made a reasonable strategic choice to stipulate, challenged the witness’s account, and presented contamination arguments at trial | Denied — counsel’s strategy had reasonable basis; no ineffectiveness shown |
| 2. Ineffective assistance for failing to interview/call Robert Fleshman | Fleshman would have provided exculpatory testimony; counsel failed to investigate or call him | Petitioner failed to identify Fleshman’s relevance, and did not meet procedural/substantive PCRA requirements for witness claims | Denied — claim lacked development and statutory requirements not satisfied |
| 3. Alleyne-based challenge to mandatory minimum sentencing | Sentence is illegal under Alleyne/Wolfe because portion is subject to §9718 mandatory-minimum scheme, impacting parole/eligibility | Sentencing court did not apply §9718 mandatory minima; court imposed sentence above statutory minima, so Alleyne inapplicable | Denied — sentencing exceeded mandatory minima; Alleyne/Wolfe not implicated |
| 4. New trial based on post-trial letter (recantation) | Letter from complaining witness admits fabrication and should warrant new trial | Recantation is unreliable and likely inadmissible; PCRA court must be satisfied of its truth to grant relief and was not | Denied — recantation unreliable; newly discovered evidence standard not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (ineffectiveness standard and deference to counsel’s strategic choices)
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (held that §9718 mandatory-minimum scheme conflicts with Alleyne)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (any fact increasing prescribed sentence must be found by a jury beyond reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656 (Pa. Super. 2015) (sentence above mandatory minimums does not present Alleyne problem)
- Commonwealth v. Scott, 470 A.2d 91 (Pa. 1983) (standards for newly discovered evidence and admissibility)
- Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 427 (Pa. 2014) (requirements to obtain relief for failure to present witness testimony)