Com. v. Smith, G.
1767 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 15, 2017Background
- Victim Jaquae Pascal was shot multiple times on July 6, 2012; eyewitness James Upshaw identified Gregory Smith (nickname “Pretty”) as the shooter.
- Police located Smith the night of the shooting, obtained a voluntary interview and a gunshot-residue (GSR) test; residue was found on his shirt.
- Smith was later arrested (after initially giving a false name during a traffic stop), tried, and convicted of first-degree murder; he received life imprisonment without parole.
- Smith’s direct appeal was affirmed and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- Smith filed a pro se PCRA petition raising, inter alia, that the information was facially defective (vague homicide charge), the court lacked authority to impose mandatory life without parole, and trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Batson claim.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition; the Superior Court affirmed, adopting the PCRA court’s reasoning that the information gave adequate notice and that 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102(a) authorized the mandatory life-without-parole sentence for first-degree murder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the information was facially defective for charging only "homicide" without degree specificity | Smith: information lacked specificity, left Commonwealth free to pursue any homicide degree | Commonwealth/PCRA Ct: charging criminal homicide sufficiently placed defendant on notice for prosecution of first-degree murder | Held: Information was adequate; claim lacks merit |
| Whether court had authority to impose mandatory life without parole for first-degree murder when not in a death-qualified case | Smith: sentencing code (42 Pa.C.S. § 9711) applies to death-qualified cases; no statute authorized mandatory LWOP in non-death cases | Commonwealth/PCRA Ct: 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102(a) mandates life imprisonment without parole for first-degree murder | Held: Sentence of life without parole is required by 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102(a); no error |
| Whether trial/PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Batson claim during jury selection | Smith: counsel failed to investigate and independently evaluate Batson issue; PCRA counsel failed Finley requisites | Commonwealth/PCRA Ct: claim lacked merit on the merits; absence of a viable Batson claim justified withdrawal | Held: Claim was not meritorious; counsel’s withdrawal/dismissal appropriate (issue not successful) |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (holding prosecutor’s race-based juror exclusions violate Equal Protection)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 951 A.2d 294 (Pa. 2008) (discussing Batson principles in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Andrews, 158 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard of review for PCRA orders)
- Commonwealth v. Phillips, 141 A.3d 512 (Pa. Super. 2016) (procedural waiver principles in appellate briefing)